HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-03 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 3, 2004 CMR: 243:04
2701 EL CAMINO REAL [03-PC-02, 03-EIA-15, 03-ARB-05]:
REQUEST BY SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT INC. TO REZONE A
ONE ACRE PARCEL FROM C-N AND RM-40 TOPLANNED
COMMUNITY TO PROVIDEAN 81-UNIT SENIOR ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that theCity Council
approve the Planned Community for 2701 E1 Camino Real and the environmental
document by approving the draft Planned Community Ordinance and exhibits
(Attachment A). The draft Ordinance describes the permitted uses and site development
regulations, and includes both Findings for Approval and a certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
DISCUSSION
The request is to rezone the parcel from the CN and RM-40 zoning districts to a Planned
Community (PC), because neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the zoning ordinance
addresses .assisted living or special needs housing as a use.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a senior assisted living facility
having a floor area ratio (FAR) of (1.5:1) and consisting of two, three, and four story
elements that range from 24’ to 45’ tall. The facility would contain 81 assisted living
units housing a total of 97 residents. The building would be _+86,400 square feet
including the underground parking garage containing 44 parking spaces.
There are multiple public benefits presented with the project, as outlined in the draft PC
Ordinance (Attachment A), but the most important benefit is the provision of the assisted
living service package at below market rates (BMR) for the 12 persons receiving BMR
rents. This is the first time in Palo Alto that the service component will be provided at
CMR:243:04 Page 1 of 5
below market rates. Other benefits include two mini parks, occasional use of meeting
space for local seniors, the provision of $20,000 for tree and median improvements
associated with the Trees for E1 Camino project, and public art.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project has been through several revisions and was heard at seven public hearings.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On April 14, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommended approval of the Planned Community zone change, certification of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and addition of a condition of approval regarding on
street parking (incorporated into the proposed PC ordinance).
The Commission acknowledged the need for senior housing in Palo Alto and the benefit
of placing it in this location, noting that Page Mill and E1 Camino Real is already a busy
intersection and the proposed use is a low traffic generator that would not exacerbate the
existing traffic conditions. The current CN and RM-40 zoning of the property would
allow uses such as a restaurant and/or condominiums that could generate up to three
times the volume of traffic as compared to the proposed project. The Commission also
recognized that the existing zoning ordinance does not provide development parameters
for this type of use and that the use of the PC is appropriate for this project. The
Commission believes that the public benefits including assisted living services at below
market rates for 12 residents, meeting space for Avenidas Senior Center, two mini parks,
the contribution to the Trees For E1 Camino project, and the public art are appropriate for
the project.
The Commissioners asked questions regarding access to the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) parking lot for future development. Sunrise approached the VTA
regarding its future plans for the property and the possibility of a joint project such that if
the VTA was planning a project that they could be coordinated together. The VTA was
not interested in a joint project because it had no plans for development of the property.
It would be willing to sell or lease the property if someone was interested, provided that
the developer maintained the same number of parking spaces that currently exist. Sunrise
does not desire to purchase or lease the VTA site. The VTA lot currently has access on
both E1 Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is used as a commuter parking lot. The
development of the Sunrise project will not limit the future development potential of this
property.
Questions were raised about the fact that the provisions of the BMR agreement do not
apply to the residents of the third floor receiving specialized care for dementia. The level
of care and services provided for these residents of the home are substantially greater
than the typical assisted living resident. The care provided on this level is similar to that
CMR:243:04 Page 2 of 5
of a medical care facility and is not subject to the City’s BMR requirement. The facility
is predominantly devoted to assisted living residents and applying the BMR to one or two
residents on the dementia floor would add significant complexity to an already
complicated BMR program and would apply to acomponent of the program that would
ordinarily be exempt from the BMR requirement.
The Commission agreed with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
which states that the volume of traffic generated by the project would not result in a
significant environmental impact. The Commission requested that the anticipated trip
distribution routes in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be reexamined prior to
City Council review. The transportation consultant, Fehr and Peers reexamined all of the
trip distribution assumptions and concluded that the project will not exceed the City’s
threshold of significance nor result in new impacts not currently addressed in the MND.
(Attachment D).
In addition to re-examining the trip distribution routes Fehr and Peers also noted that its
ori~nal estimates regarding the anticipated volume of traffic generated by the project
were greater than the findings reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
in its updated trip generation tables. It is professional practice to use the ITE trip
generation tables to assess the anticipated volume of traffic that may be generated by a
particular use. This information is based on national studies of similar facilities. At the
time the TIA was oriNnally performed, the ITE trip generation table did not include data
for assisted living facilities. Therefore, Fehr and Peers evaluated other Sunrise facilities
in the area to calculate traffic volume for theproject. ITE has recently included assisted
living facilities and the new ITE data indicates that the project would generate about 20%
fewer trips than originally assumed in the original TIA. This reduction in the anticipated
volume of traffic means that regardless of the assumed trip distribution routes, the
volume of traffic that would potentially be generated by the project would be less likely
to result in an environmental impact. This information is included here because it is
new information that was not part of the TIA and is important for City Council and
members of the public to see that this project will not result in detrimental traffic impacts.
To address the concerns related to the existing daytime parking issues on Sheridan
Avenue, the Commission recommended a condition of approval requiring Sunrise to
evaluate the parking situation on Sheridan Avenue six months after the Sunrise facility
opens. A two-hour parking limitation was suggested as a potential solution to make
parking spaces available during business hours. Sunrise will be required to monitor the
on-street parking situation on Sheridan Avenue and report back to the City with
recommendations regarding potential solutions, one possibility being a two-hour parking
limitation.
At the Commission hearing, two members of the public spoke in favor of the project,
citing that the use is appropriate for the area and that the project has been adequately
CMR:243:04 Page 3 of 5
revised to address earlier neighbor concerns. Two other speakers expressed their opinion
that the project would result in a significant environmental impact related to traffic and a
loss of neighborhood commercial retail uses.
Architectural Review Board
The ARB reviewed preliminary plans at a public hearing on December 18, 2003. The
formal proposal was then reviewed by the ARB on February 5 and March 4, 2004, when
the ARB recommended approval of the revised project to City Council with a 2-1-0-2
vote. Two members were absent from the March 4, 2004 meeting and one member was
opposed primarily due to the number and type of exterior materials proposed for the
building. To meet the conditions of the ARB recommendation, specific architectural
details were presented to and approved by the ARB on consent calendar on April 1, 2004.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The processing of the PC development application is on a cost/recovery basis and staff
time is charged to the applicant. The proposed project, with 60 assisted living units
(below 900 square feet in size) and 15,016 square feet of commercial square footage on
the dementia floor would result in approximately $280,438 in Development Impact Fees.
The breakdown of the fees is as follows: Parks, $217,048; Community Centers, $45,870;
Libraries, $17,520. Property taxes for the property are currently $25,000. With the
completion of the Sunrise project it is estimated that property taxes would increase to
$20O,OOO.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Planned Community Ordinance with Exhibits (A) Zone Map; (B) Draft
Conditions of Approval (C) Development Schedule;
Attachment B: Environmental Assessment!Mitigated Negative Declaration;
Attachment C: BMR agreement;
Attachment D: Transportation consultant memo dated April 19, 2004;
Attachment E: Previous Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
Attachment F: Public Comments dated March 4, 2004 and March 16, 2004
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
G: ARB meeting minutes (12/18/03, 2/5/04, 3/4/04, 4/1/04 ) (Council
members only)
H: Commission meeting minutes (9/10/03, 11/12/03, 4/14/04) (Council
members only)
I: Project Plans and applicant materials (Council members only)
Note.: Previous staff reports and hearing minutes for this project are available in the
public file or on the city’s web site.
CMR:243:04 Page 4 of 5
PREPARED BY:
RUSS REICH
Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
,..STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
EMILY ~HA~RRI S O~
Assistant City Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Daniel F. Zemanek
Jerry Mcdevitt
Joe A Villareal
Bill Hahn
Jim Baer
Angelica Volterra
James Yee
Robert Cutler
Troy Underwood
Herb Borock
William Hadaya
Viviana Tul
Joy Ogawa
Clarice Arne
Dale Reed
Yeuen Kim
Shannon McEntee
Sanjeet Thadani
Helena Roeber and Shahriar Rabii
DeAnn Underwood
Roger Smith
CMR:243:04 Page 5 of 5
NOT YET APPROVED
Attachment A
ORD!NANCEN0.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2701 EL CAMINO
REAL FROM CN AND RM-40 TO PC PLIED
COKMUNITY
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Application and Hearings.
(a) Application has been made to the City for approval of
the construction on an approximately 1 acre site bounded by E1
Camino Rea! and Sheridan Avenue of a ±63,500 square foot senior
assisted living facility including 81 rental dwelling units and a
subterranean parking garage.
(b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of
March 4, 2004 considered the Project, which then included 81
dwelling units, and recommended its approva!, subject to certain
conditions.
(c) The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearings held September i0, 2003, November 12, 2003 and, April 14,
2004 recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to
permit construction of the Project.
(d) The Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 3. Amendment of Zoning Map.
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
"Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain
property known as 2701 E1 Camino Real (the "subject property") from
"CN Neighborhood Commercial" and "High Density Multiple-Family
Residence District RM-40" to "PC Planned Community " The
subject property, consisting of approximately .94 acres, is shown
on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
040428 syn 8250042
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4.
District.
Findings for Approva! of Planned Community
The City Council, in approving the Planned Community
district, hereby finds that:
(a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the
site are such that general or combining zoning districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in
that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could
accommodate the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and
building height unless variances were granted.
(b) Development of the Project on the site will provide
public benefits not otherwise attainable, as more specifically
described below.
(i) The site is currently vacant and prior to its
demolition was a retail nursery with a street front parking lot.
The vacant property with only dirt, weeds and a few trees does not
create an environment that is welcoming to pedestrians or one that
reinforces the importance of E1 Camino Real. The Project will
replace the vacant lot with a wel!-designed structure built to
contemporary building and safety standards using materials of high
quality. The siting and architecture of the building is. compliant
with the South E1 Camino " Real Guidelines and will provide a
building fagade that wil! enhance the pedestrian and automobile
experience at this prominent street intersection.
(ii) The existing vacant lot has generated no parking
demand or traffic for several years. The site is presently zoned to
permit commercia! and high density residentia! deve!opment which
have the potential of exacerbating the level of traffic congestion
in the area. The proposed PC would reduce the level of traffic
congestion in the area that would otherwise be associated with a
project that could be built under the current zoning by
establishing a use that generates a low volume of traffic.
(iii) The Comprehensive Plan allows for residential
densities of up to 40 dwelling units per acre and 90 persons per
acre. This project is residential in nature but it is not a
typical residential development. This development would provide
assisted living for seniors and care for persons living with
Alzheimer’s. This is special needs housing which is an under
represented use in the community. Due to the reduced impacts
associated with this type of use, exceeding the parameters
established in the zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use
designations is appropriate. The current general zoning standards
and Comprehensive Plan land use designations do not account for
040428 syn 8250042
NOT YET APPROVED
special needs housing and a Planned Community district is necessary
to provide for this type of use.
(iv) The Project will provide Below Market Rate (BMR)
Housing for twelve persons. The most significant component of the
BMR agreement is the provision of board and care services at below
market rates in addition to the rents. No other project to date
has provided this benefit in Palo Alto. The Project’s owner has
signed a letter dated April 6, 2004 making a commitment to provide
this subsidy for rent and services. A formal Agreement to Provide
Be!ow Market Rate Housing must be executed prior to final adoption
of this ordinance. This type of housing would not be obtainable
without the use of a planned community zone because the City has
not addressed special needs housing in the Comprehensive Plan or
the ordinance.
(v) The Project will provide two publicly accessible
open space areas at E1 Camino Real and Sheridan Avenue. These open
spaces will include seating and landscaping. They will provide
comfortable public, albeit privately owned and maintained, places
for informal socializing in an area short of such amenities. They
will be open to the general public without charge.
(vi) In addition to the 15 street trees proposed
along the E1 Camino Real and the Sheridan Avenue street frontages,
the applicant will provide $20,000 for median improvements and tree
planting costs associated with the Trees for E1 Camino project.
(vii) Sunrise and the Avenidas Senior Center will
cooperate to allow Avenidas to utilize certain meeting areas within
the Sunrise facility, with Sunrise’s approval, for various
functions such as meetings, conferences and workshops. The use of
this space would be provided once or twice per month to area
seniors. Such use shall be subject to such reasonable rules and
regulations as Sunrise may adopt from time to time.
(viii) The project will incorporate public art with a
theme in keeping with the interests of senior citizens. The art
may take the form of a free standing piece, a mural, or a special
wrought iron treatment on the perimeter fencing.
(c) The Council further finds that the Project provides
public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient
importance to make the Project as a whole one with substantial
public benefit.
(d) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and
potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general
040428 syn 8250042
3
NOT YET APPROVED
vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan policies:
(i) Policy H-l: "Meet community and neighborhood
needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the
preservation of unique character of the city’s existing
neighborhoods" The project provides needed housing stock for a
special needs population and enhances the neighborhood with an
attractive building that is appropriate at E1 Camino Real and is
sensitive to the adjacent multifamily uses.
(ii) Policy H-2: "Identify and implement a variety
of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations." The project proposal of a PC provides a
higher density of housing and increases the diversity in the city’s
housing stock with a project that provides special needs housing
for seniors. The project accomplishes a higher residential density
without the negative impacts of increased density.
(iii) Policy H-17: "Support opportunities for shared
Housing and other innovative housing forms to promote diversity and
meet the needs of different household types and income levels".
The project, providing senior assisted living, adds to the
diversity of housing stock and provides opportunities for shared
housing to meet the needs of seniors at different income levels.
(iv) Policy H-18: "Support housing that incorporates
facilities and services to meet the healthcare, transit, or social
service needs of households with special needs, including seniors
and persons with disabilities." The projects is special needs
housing and provides the needed services for senior as well as
persons living with Alzheimer’s.
(v) Policy L-17: "Treat residential streets as both
public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous
sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that
favor pedestrians." The project will provide new street trees to
enhance the residential street as well as landscape amenity areas
with plantings and benches for pedestrians to enjoy.
SECTION 5. Development Plan
Those certain plans entitled 2701 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto,
California prepared by Mithun Architects dated Apri! 6, 2004, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning Division office, and to
which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the
Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.68.120.
040428 syn 8250042
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. Uses.
(a) Permitted Uses.
to the following:
The permitted uses shall be limited
(i) Senior Assisted Living Residential Use: Senior
assisted living and ancillary uses including but not limited to
dining facility, management offices, hair salon,
recreation/activity rooms, and meeting rooms.
(ii) Home Occupation: In any individual unit, home
occupations accessory to the residentia! use of that unit are
permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating
home occu3ations(PAMC Section 18.88.130).
(iii) Dementia Care: Dementia care, including care for
persons living with Alzheimer’s, on the third floor as shown on
development plans dated April 6, 2004.
(iv) Parking Garage: 44 parking spaces shall be
provided for the use of employees, visitors and tenants.
(v) Public amenity areas: The two landscape amenity
areas at E1 Camino Real and Sheridan Avenue shall be open and
accessible to the general public at all times. These areas will
provide comfortable space for informal socializing without charge.
Any proposed restricted access shall be according to a written
agreement approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, and shall be supportive of, rather than in conflict
with, the free public use. In the event that Sunrise encounters
security issues with respect to the open space area, then sunrise
shal! have the right to adopt non-discriminating rules and
regulations relating to access and use subject to the approva! of
the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
(vi) Telecommunication facilities: Subject to the
approval of the Architectural Review Board at board or staff level.
SECTION 7.Site Development Regulations.
(a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements
and development shall be substantially in accordance with the
Development Plan, and subject to the conditions of approva! and
mitigation measures adopted by City Council.
Any exterior changes to the buildings or any new
construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or
by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to
this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter
040428 syn 8250042
NOT YET APPROVED
18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time
to time.
(b) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The
Project shall provide 12 persons with below market rate rents and
services to be included in the City’s Below Market Rate ("BMR")
program. The units will be on the first second and fourth floors
of the building.
The provisions of this condition have been agreed to
by the Project’s owner and are set forth in a letter to the project
applicant dated April 6, 2004. These provisions shall be
incorporated into a formal agreement, which shall be entered into
and recorded against the property prior to the final adoption of
this ordinance.
If, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
Project, the Project Owner and the City Manager determine and agree
that the goals of the City’s below-market rate housing program are
better met if the space allocated to BMR units is reconfigured to
provide more units or a different allocation of rooms, they may do
so by amending the Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market
Rate Housing.
(c) Development Schedule. Construction of the Project
shall commence on or before March, 2005, and shall be completed and
ready for occupancy on or before October, 2006, provided there are
no acts of God or other causes beyond the reasonable contro! of
Sunrise, as shown in the attached Exhibit "C". The Director of
Planning and Community Environment may extend these time limits
once by not more than one year, as described in 18.68.130 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 8. The City as the lead agency for the Project has
caused to be prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the office of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the
planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the
record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 9. Certification. The City Council certifies that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council and the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and written
testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all
other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for
approval the various actions related to the Project. The City
040428 syn 8250042
NOT YET APPROVED
Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency.
SECTION i0. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
040428 syn 8250042
The City of
Palo Alto
2701 E1 Camino Real
03 - PC - 02
Existing Zoning: RM40: CN
Proposed Zoning: PC
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sunrise Assisted Living
2701 E1 Camino Real
File No. 03-ARB-05, 03-EIA-15, 03-PC-02
Plannin.-, Division
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans
dated April 6, 2004, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
o These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted
with the Building Permit application.
o The mitigation measures specified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
incorporated as conditions of approval.
The Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM), as outlined in the Transportation
Impact Analysis shall be implemented. The facility operator shall offer and provide
transit passes (bus and!or rail) to any employee. Alternative commute information shall
be provided to every employee.
The applicant shall provide a loading zone on Et Camino Real in a location specified by
the Transportation Division and as specified by the Public works Department.
o Large delivery trucks must use the E1 Camino Real loading zone for all deliveries and no
delivery tracks shall double park on Sheridan Avenue. The Sunrise facility shall not
accept deliveries from drivers that do adhere to this condition.
7.The emergency generator shall be located in the parking garage toward E1 Camino Real.
Development impact fees totaling $280,437.80 shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto prior
to the issuance of the building permit.
The Development Plan requires the planting and protection of specified new trees within
the development. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior
approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures.
10.The Sunrise facility may have no more than 97 residents at any given time.
11.The awnings shall be maintained such that they will be replaced by the facility operator
or designee if worn or damaged and cleaned if they become soiled.
12.Six months after the Sunrise facility opens, Sunrise shall monitor the on street parking
situation on Sheridan Avenue and report their findings to the City. Sunrise shall forward
recommendations regarding potential solutions, based on the reported conditions, to the
City with one possibility being a two hour parking limitation.
Plannin~o Arborist
13. The four tress identified in the Ralph Osterling Consultant’s Inc. arborist report (#961,
#965, #966, #967) shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan. If further
study indicated that tree #967 would be better served by the removal of tree # 966 then
the tree may be removed.
14.Areas to be compacted (sidewalks, patios, driveways, etc) within 15 feet of a planted tree
shall use structural soil base course material a minimum of 30-inches deep.
15.The tree protection plan specified in the arborist report shall be implemented prior to the
commencement of construction activity.
Buildin~ Division
16. The location of the building’s electrical and gas services shall require prior approval by
the Inspection Services division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room
or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. These electrical and gas service
locations are to be indicated on the plans and also need to be coordinated with the Palo
Alto Utilities Department.
Public
17.
Works Operations
The Public Works arborist shall specify the appropriate trees to be planted by the
applicant in the public right of way.
Public
18.
Works En~ineerin~
Since this project will create one acre or more of impervious surface, it will be subject to
new City storm water regulations. The regulations will require inclusion of storm water
treatment controls sized in accordance with numeric standards, source control measures
that prevent pollutants from contacting storm water runoff, and site design measures that
reduce storm runoff and isolate contaminated runoff in order to minimize the need for
storm water treatment. In addition, the regulations will require long-term maintenance of
installed storm water treatment measures, subject to verification by the City. The
applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering staff to discuss the implications of
the new regulations on the project along with other grading and drainage issues.
19.All garage drains shall be routed through an oil-water separator and discharge into the
sanitary sewer system.
20.The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the
basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The
applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys
site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address
potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent
BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and
handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to
Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land
Development Project"). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and
drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans.
Prior to submittal for building permit
21. The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area is unable to convey the peak
runoff from the project site. The applicant wi!l be required to provide storm water
detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on city storm drains. The applicant’s
engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project
and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered
civil engineer.
22.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate
the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage
system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent
properties, shall be maintained.
23.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.
The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s
monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the
construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets
and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering.
24.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck
routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo
Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which
outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing
these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public
Works Engineering.
Prior to issuance of buildingpermit
25. The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City
right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010.
26.A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara
right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit
approval shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments.
27.A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer
must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction
issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by
using this and other available information, as well as professional experience, the
engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered
in the furore. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water
level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface
perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be
undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected
hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general,
however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a
way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels.
28.This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must
apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES
general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice
of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage
under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit
two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both
permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed
during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design.
29.The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumpin~Flows to Matadero Creek" logo in
blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo
are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be
contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the
stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and
drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials
Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project.
30.The project includes the construction of dumpst.er and recycling areas as part of a food
service facility. Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately
roofed or covered.
During construction
3 !. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to
any work performed in the public right-of-way.
32.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without
prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The developer shall require its contractor to
incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in
all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil,
asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or
storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09).
33.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Prior to finalization
34. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed
and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010.
35.The unused driveways located along E1 Camino Real and Sheridan shall be removed and
replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090.
36.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of
this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly,
all as-builts, on-site ~ading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed
prior to sign-off.
37.A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the comer of E1 Camino Real and
Sheridan Avenue.
Utilities Marketing Services
38. Prior to the issuance of either a building permit or a grading permit, all common area
landscaping shall be approved by the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the
Utilities Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water Efficiency
Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with more than 1500 square feet of
landscaped area, a water budget shall be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation
water meter shall be required.
Fire Department
39. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical clearance.
Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 lbs.) and a turning radius (40 ft. inside)
requirements of the fire track. Road shall be all-weather, and shall reach to within 150
feet of any point on the first floor of the exterior. (200ICFC902.2.2)
40.Applicant shall consult the building division for requirements related to electrical and
transformer room location.
41.A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout the building, which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standards No. 13-1999 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083)
NOTE: building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is
indicated.
42.A class one standpipe system shall be provided for the building, which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standard No. 14-1996 edition. Standpipe system installations
require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) Approved
2 1/2-inch hose valves shall be provided at each under~ound floor level landing in every
stairwell for the under~ound parking structure. (PANIC 15.040178) NOTE: The
standpipe system may be combined with the fire sprinkler system. A fire pump is
required for combined systems capable of delivering 750 gpm @ 100psi from the
highest outlets from each standpipe.
43.An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s) and
shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24-1996 Edition. Fire supply
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04083)
Note: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and
Public Works Department requirements have been met.
44.An approved automatic and manual fire alarm system shall be provided throughout the
interior of each building. (2001CBC310.14.12) Fire Alarm System installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) Note: Smoke
detectors in dwelling units shall be supervised by the fire alarm system and shall
send a signal upon activation to an approved location in addition to sounding an
alarm signal audible throughout the dwelling unit.
45.At least one elevator car servicing all floors shall be sized for Fire Department gurney
access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24"x 82" plus a minimum of two
emergency response personnel. (PAMC 15.04.120)
46.Building shall be of Type II fire-resistive construction, due to A-3 Occupancy (Dinning
Room) located above the second floor. (2001CBC506)
47.Applicant shall purchase Opticom traffic signal preemption equipment for City
installation sufficient to upgrade one intersection
48.The generator room shall be separated from the rest of the building by not less than one-
hour construction.
49.The generator and fuel tank system shall be listed and approved.
50.Additional hazardous materials requirements will apply, depending on the quantity and-
type of fuel.
Public
51.
Works Water Qualitv/Environmental Compliance
In accordance with PAMC Section 16.09.103 (a), a grease interceptor with a minimum
capacity of 750 gallons must be provided. The grease interceptor must be sized in
accordance with Appendix H of the Uniform Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation
must be submitted with the building permit plans
52.PAMC Section 16.09.103(e) prohibits the installation of a garbage grinder at any food
service facility. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal.
53.Drain plumbing for the underground parking garage must be connected to an oil/water
separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
(PAMC 16.09.032(B)(17)).
54.If a hydraulic elevator is installed, any hard-plumbed water discharge to the sanitary
sewer from the elevator sump pit must pass by gravity flow through an oil/water
separator. If a sump pump is to be utilized, the pumped discharge must be contained in a
tank, or the sump pump must be equipped with an oil sensor to prevent hydraulic oil
spills from being pumped to the sanitary sewer.
Water Gas & Wastewater Utilities Department
Prior to submittal for building permit
55. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands for each meter (water in g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.).
56.The applicant shall submit improvement plans foi" utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
57.The applicant must show on the site P!an the existence of any water well, or auxiliary
water supply.
58.The applicant shall be responsible for relocating, installing and upgrading the existing
utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the
relocation/installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
Prior to issuance of building permit
59. Show water services/meters (domestic, fire and irrigation) gas meter and sewer lateral
connection on the plans (each parcel shall have its own).
60.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
61.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall
be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the
water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the
assembly.
62.An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for water connections for the
fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be
installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the
detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection
inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly.
During construction
63. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new
utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation
of services, meters, hydrants, or Other facilities will be performed at the cost of the
person/entity requesting the relocation.
64.The contractor shall contact under~ound service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in
advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities.
65.The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines
within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer
lines shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling.
66.The contractor shall maintain 12" clear, above and below, from the existing utilities to
new underground facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing
utility mains and/or services as necessary to accommodate new storm drains, with the
prior approval of the Utility Department. This responsibility includes all costs associated
with the design and construction for the relocation of the utility mains and/or services.
Sanitary sewer laterals will need to be replaced for the full length of the lateral (if
possible) per the Utility Standards. Sanitary sewer mains can not be relocated.
67.If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pilot bore hole shall be 24"
clear from any existing utility pipes and all existing utility crossings shall be potholed
prior to starting work.
68.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
69.Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following receipt of
full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum)
for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
70.All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector.
Inspection costs shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities
inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of constructions.
71.The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-
6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged.
72.All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division,
inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to
activation of the water service.
73.No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for
any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be performed
by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the
Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such
operation is required.
74.The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by
expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the
estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission.
75.The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance
of chlorination and bacteri!logical testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing
method shall be in conformance with ANSI!AWWA C65 l-latest edition.
76.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WGW utilities procedures.
77. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
Utilities Engineering Electric
Prior to issuance of Demolition permit
75. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both
public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
Permittee shall contact Under~ound Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
76.The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or
meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building
Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days
after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services
and!or meters have been disconnected and removed.
Prior to submittal of building permit
77. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all
building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included
with the preliminary submittal.
78.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
79.This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall
be shown on the site plan and. approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural
Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
80.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easeinent for facilities installed
on private property as required by the City.
81.The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized
according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are
permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in len~h require additional pull boxes. The design
and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule &
Regulations #16 & #18.
82.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved
by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
83.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required
equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
84.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation # 18.
85.Projects that require the extension of hitch voltage primary distribution lines must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities.
Prior to issuance of building permit
86. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
During construction
87. Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of
Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks,
driveways and planter strips.
88.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and
marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA
markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
88. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes
and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are
allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National
Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site
substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where
mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure
work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16.
89.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at
a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary
conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
90.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule
& Regulation #16.
91.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus
duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the
National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
92.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must
submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore
Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable
EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear.
93.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
Utilities Rule & regulation #18.
After construction and prior to f’malization
94. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards,
conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and
switch!transformer pads.
Prior to occupancy
95. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16.
96.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
97.All fees must be paid.
98.Developer shall provide electrical load details/calculations. This project may require a
padmounted transformer. Lead time on the transformer is 6-8 months. Utilities
Engineering will provide cost estimate/fees when drawings are submitted to the Building
Department for review and approval.
Building Division
Prior to permit application
99.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the
construction including all site development, utility installations, architectural, structural,
electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project.
100.The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased
under multiple permits.
101.A separate grading permit may required if cut and/or fill grading exceeds 100 cubic
yards. The excavation of the basement parking garage is included as part of the building
permit and does not require a separate grading permit.
102.The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for
building permit and are to be "deferred" shall be limited to as few items as possible. The
list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application.
103.The location of the building’s electrical service shall require prior approval by the
Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or
enclosure accessible directly form the exterior. Ii is not accepatable to locate an electrical
service and main disconnect where it must be accessed by passing through a below grade
parking garage,.
104.The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area
calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction.
105.The plans submitted with the permit application for the new building shall include the
complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site, building entrances,
basement parking and on-grade parking. Disabled access design shall comply with
California Building Code Chapters 10, 11A and 30.
106.Wood burning fireplaces are prohibited by PAMC Section 9.06.
107.An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s
recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC
Appendix Chapter 12, Division IIA. The acoustical engineer shall submit a letter
certifying that the building plans incorporate the report recommendations.
108.The building shall be of a "type of construction" that will permit the proposed A3
occupancy (Alzheimer Dining, terraces, etc.) on the stories above the first floor.
109.Fire-rated occupancy separations shall be provided between the various R1, A3, B, $3
occupancies proposed to be located in the mixed use building per CBC Section 302 and
Table 3-B.
110.The required 1-hour rated corridors shall be separated from other rooms or spaces (such
as the Alzheimer Dining area) as prescribed in CBC Section 1004.3.4. Additionally, the
exit corridors shall not be used for purposes that could obstruct or hinder its’ use as an
exit path.
111.All doors in the exit paths leading from the building’s A occupancies shall be provided
with panic hardware in accordance with CBC Section 1007.2.5.
Prior to issuance of building and or grading permits
112.Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required for the commercial "kitchen
construction. Please submit 2 copies of plans stamped and approved by the Health Dept.,
prior to permit issuance.
249 View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650-938-2249 Fax: 650-96!-64.52
Exhibit C~
April 23, 2004
Sunrise of Palo Alto
Development Plan
Chronology
The following chronology is based upon the anticipated approval of the City Council on
May 3, 2004. Any approval delays would move the remaining dates of the chronology
forward a like amount of days. Weather, always an unknown, can have a delaying effect
upon a construction schedule. The following dates assume no delays due to
extraordinary weather.
May 3, 2004 - Anticipated Approval by City Council
August, 2004 - Submission of Construction Drawings for Building Permit
February, 2005 - Building Permits Issued
March, 2005 - Construction Commences
The following is a typical construction schedule of events (Items listed below are not
necessarily done sequentially.):
4 Weeks - Clearing & Grubbing
8 Weeks - Bulk Excavation
4 Weeks - Rough Grading
8 Weeks - Site Utilities
8 Weeks - Underground Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing
16 Weeks - Underground Parking
6 Weeks - Curbing
2 Weeks - Paving-Binder
15 Weeks - Interior Light Gauge Metal Framing
6 Weeks - Exterior Light Gauge Metal Framing
6 Weeks - Roof Truss Framing
15 Weeks - Mechanical, Plumbing & Electrical Rough
6 Weeks - Roof
6 Weeks - Built Up Roof
10 Weeks - Exterior Sheathing & Waterproofing
4 Weeks - Windows
15 Weeks - Drywall
10 Weeks - Skin of Building
8 Weeks - Exterior Paint
12 Weeks - Doors & Trim
10 Weeks - Cabinets & Counters
8 Weeks - HardscapeiWalls
16 Weeks - Paint & Vinyl Wall Covering
8 Weeks - Landscape & Irrigation
10 Weeks - Flooring
6 Weeks - Finish Mechanical, Plumbing & Electrical
1 Week- Paving Finish
28 Days- Contingency
September, 2006 - Certificate of Occupancy
October, 2006 - Grand Opening
Attachment B
Date:
Application Nos.:
City of Palo Alto
Departmentof Planning and CommuniO, Environment
California Environmental QualiO, Act
MIrl CA rED CA rZW D E CLAI TI ON
DESC~TION OF PRO~CT t~,: THE OFI:~C2 OF T~<Z COL:>~T? CL~rdC-r~ZCO~OEk
~ REND,k DA",:~5, COUNTY CLERK
Febm~, 4, 2004 ~. ~ .....~mlBY DEPUTg
Address of Project:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Applicant/Owner:
2701 E1 Camino Real
132-36-087
Dan Zemanek
249 View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Project Description and Location
The applicant proposes to construct a four-stow 86,400 square foot senior assisted living faciliDT
consisting of 81 living units with the capacity for a total of 97 residents, an auto court located on
Sheridan Avenue, one level of below ~ade parking providing 44 parking spaces primarily for
employees and visitors, and punic amenity areas on the site. Due to the special use proposed for
this site the proposed project would require the zone district to be changed to a Platmed
Communit7 Zone.
The project site is approxi_mately 1-acre on a vacant and fiat comer lot fronting E] Camino Real
and Sheridan Avenue. It is within 2,000 feet of the California Avenue Ca! Train station, and is
adjacent to a transit corridor with bus service. Surrounding land uses include; a condominium
complex to the north, VTA surface parking lot to the east, vacant land proposed as soccer fields
to the south, retail to the southwest, office to the west, and high density multiple family
condominium complex to the northwest.
II.DETERIVIENATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 2701 E1 Camino Real could have a significant
effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the Ci~" makes the following
determination:
X
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATI~ DECLAdL&TION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, tbere will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for contaminated soils and traffic impacts
have been added to the project and, therefore, a .~vUTIGATED NEG_&TIVE
DECL~4.TIONh.s hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
tn addition, the following mitigation measures have .been incorporated into the project:
A :Soil Management Plan for Construction Activities at 465 and 475 Sheridan
:&venue and 2701 and 2711 E1 Cam,no Real, Palo Mto, California was reviewed by
the CiB; of Palo .Mto’s Environmental Protection Division, JanuarT 28, 2004 (Source
Reference #30) and found to be adequate. The Soil Management Plan (Source
Reference #13) shall be followed in its entireu, during the development of the
subject site and remedial actions taken as prescribed in the Plan. These actions
serve as appropriate and adequate mitigations for the potentially significant
environmental impacts associated with the lead-contaminated soil at the subject site.
The actions will be monitored by the CiU" of Palo .Mto Fire Department
Environmental Protection Division and must comply with all Club regional and
state reg~alations, as appropriate.
A Dewatering Work-plan for Construction Activities at 465 and 475 Sheridan
Avenue and 2701 and 2711 El Cam.no Real, Pa!o AJto, California was reviewed by
the City of Palo _Mto’s Environmental Protection Di~.Ssion, JanuarT 28, 2004 (Source
Reference #30) and found to be adequate. The Dewatering Workplan (Source
Reference #14) shall be followed in its entirety during ~he development of the
subject site and remedial actions taken as prescribed in the Plan. These actions
serve as appropriate and adequate mitigations for the potentially significant
environmental impacts associated with the possibiliUT of encountering contaminated
gToundwater at the subject site. The actions will be monitored by the CiU~ of Palo
.<o Fire Department Environmental Protection Division and must comply with all
City, re~onal and state regx~lations, as appropriate. -
The developer shall pro~ide ful!3’ paid transit passes for any employee who wishes
one,
Project Planner Date
Environment
ENV RONf ENTAL CHECKLIST FORi
City of Palo A~to
Department .of Planning and Community Environment
1.Project Title:2701 El Camino Real
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number:Russ Reich, Associate Planner
650-617-3119
4.Project Location:2701 El Camino Real
5.Application Number:03-EIA-15
=
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Dan Zemanek
Sunrise Development Inc.
249 View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
7.General Plan Designation:CN and MF
8.Zoning:CN and RM-40
9. Description of the Project: The applicant proposes to construct a four-sto~
86,400 square foot senior assisted living facility consisting of 81 living units with the
capacity for a total of 97 residents, an auto court located on Sheridan Avenue, one level
ofbelow gade parking providing 44 parking spaces primarily for employees and visitors,
and public amenity areas on the site. Due to the specia! use proposed for this site the
proposed project would require the zone district to be changed to a Planned Community
Zone.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is approximately 1-acre on a
vacant and flat coruer lot fronting E1 Camino Real and Sheridan Avenue, is within 2,000
feet of the California Avenue Cal "Train station, and is adjacent to a transit corridor with
bus service. Surrounding land uses include; a condominium complex to the north, VTA
surface parking tot to the east, vacant land proposed as soccer fields to the south, retail to
Page 1
the southwest, o~ce to the west: and .hig,~. densiD: multiple family condominium complex
to the northwest.
Other public agencies whose approval .is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement). None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
IAesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
I Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology]Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
r~ateria~s
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land UselPianning
Resources
Noise
Popu~ationlHousin~
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
UtilitieslService
Systems
M, andator3, Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To.be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have .been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a-significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect: I)-has been adequately analyzed in an earlier dc~cument pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached shee~. An
ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the l
Page 2
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~rectorLof Planning and
Community Environment
Date
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported
if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant
Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant, if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Pag~ 3
Earlier-analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEC~A process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section t 5063 (C) (3) (D). in this case, a brief discussion should identify
the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to appiicabie legal-standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Neasures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead-agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to.
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances).
Reference to a previousfy prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be a~ached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure .identified, if any, to ’reduce the impact to less than
significance.
issues and Supporting information
Resources
l.AESTHETICS. Would the nroject:
a)Have .a substantial adverse effect I
on a scenic vista?I t,2,3,4,5!
b)Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, .but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Ic) Substantially degrade the
e~.isting visual character or
quality of the site and its
I surroundings?
1,2,3,4,5
~ ,2,:3,4,5
Potentialiy
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lncomorated
¯ Less Than
Significant
impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
Page 4
Issues-and Supporting Information
Resources
d)Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
1,2,3,6
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. in determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the proiect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the 1 X
Farmland Mapping and
I~1onitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for Iagricultural use, or a Williamson 1, 8 (L-
I XAct contract?9), 9
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could 1 X
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
I!1. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air qualit3, management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
X
X
X
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including reieasing
emissions which exceed
Issues ant{ Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1,4,1 !,
concentrations?16
e)Create objectionable odors r
affecting a substantial number of 1,4,11, ~
people? ............. 16 .!
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pro~ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special 1,
status species in local or 2(N-1)
regional ptans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department offish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wiidiife Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse t
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive .natural
community identified in local or 1,
regional ptans, policies,2(N-1)
regulations orby the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally .protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal 1,
pool, coasta[, etc.) through direct 2(N-t)
removal, filling, hydro}ogical
.i.~terruption, or other means?
d) interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish orwildlife
species or with established
native resident or migrator3’~ I,
wildlife corridors, or impede the i 2(N-!)use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies }
or ordinances protecting Ibiological resour.ces, such as a ...........1,2,3,4,
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
X
X
impact
X
X
X
X
Page 6
Issues and Supporting information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incor!~orated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
I6,7,25,
26 X t
V=
b)
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community 1,2
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a 1,2
historical resource as defined in (L-7)
15064.57
Cause a substantia~ adverse
change in the significance of an 1,2
archaeological resource (L-8)
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource 1,2
or site or unique geologic (L-4,
feature?L-8)
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside 1,2
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proiect:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, iniury, ..or..dea~h iqvo!vin~:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Aiquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on 1,2
other substantial evidence of (N-5)
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii)Strong seismic ground
shaking?
c)
d)
VI.
X
X
1,2
(N-10),
12 X
iii) Seismic-related ground
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
pa=~e 7
issues and Supporting Information Sources .Potentially Potentially Le~s Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
MitigationIncorporated
failure, including 1,2(N-X
lic~uefaction?5),12
iv) Landslides?t,2(N-
5),!2 I
X
b)
1,4,24 X
d)
e)
VIL
a)
Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoiI?
Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in "Fable t 8-I-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Have .soiis incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
1,2(N-
S),12
1,2(N-
s}, 12
HAZARDS AND HAZ.ARDOUS NiATERtALS. Would the-pro,iect?
1,4,8,11,
13,t4,
I5,16,30
X
1,4,8,! 1,
13,14,
15,t6,30
Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materia}s?
b) Create a significant haTard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
.involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acute!y
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on ~ list of hEardous
1,2(C-l)
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting information
Resources
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project.within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the proiect area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
ptan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wiidland
fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbani~’ed areas
or where residences are
intermixed with wiid~,ands?
Sources Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
1,2(N-9),8,11,
13,14,
15,16,30
1,2(N-
7),4,21
1,2
(N-7),
4,21
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
ISSUES
VIii. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would thepro’=ct’)..
a) Violate any water quality I ’
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
1,2
(N-
2),4,24
X
X
X
X
X
X
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which...
X
Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which
permits have been 9ranted)?
Potentially
Significant
~ssues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Titan
Significant
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in
substantial erosion or sil~tion
on- or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
.increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a-manner
which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of poliuted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a lOD-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Ha~’ard
Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Ptace within a 1DO-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or struc.tures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
, .~.) Inundation by seiche, ~unami,
1,4,24
1,4,24
1,4,24
,2(N-6)
t,2
(N-6,
1,2(N-6,
X
X
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
PagelO
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentiaily
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
or"mudflow? N~8)
LAND USEAND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established
comrnunity?1
Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not 1,2,3,4,
limited to the general plan,23
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation 1,4,7
p|an?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
IX.
c)
a)Result in the loss of availability I
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the skate?
Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the proie..ct result in:
E}~posure o~ persons to or .......
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project? .....
b)
2(N-3,N-
4),4,8,10
c)
X
V
X
2(N-3,N-
4),4,8,10
2(N-3,N-
4),4,8,10
X
X
X
X
Pa=~e 1 ]
issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
d)A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
2(N-3,N-
4),4,8,10
v !,,I,. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in.an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or 1,2,4
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating 1
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the 1
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impact, in order to maintain
acceptabie service ratios,
response times or other
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Nitigatien
lncomorated
Less Than
Significant
impact
V
No
impact
X
X
X
X
X
Page 12
issues and Supporting Information
Resources
XIV.
a)
b)
performance objectives ’for any .............
of the public services:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks? ¯
Other public facilities?
RECREATION
Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
2,21
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,4
XV. TRANSPORTATIONFFRAFFIC. Would the proiect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is substantial in refation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system 2,(T-7,
(i.e., result in a substantial T-8),9,
increase in either the number of 29
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? ................
Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the 2,9,29
county, congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?. .....
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a 1
change in location that resul~ in ..........
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
impact
N~
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~ssues and Supporting information Sources i Potentially
Resources Significant
~ssues
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,4,9,29
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?2,21
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?t ,2,3,4,
29
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting 1,2,3,4,
alternative transportation (e.g.,29
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XV[. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable 2,14,
Regional Water Quality Control 27,28
Board?
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or 2,27,28
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new sto,~n water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the 2,24
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and 2,20,27
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate 2,20,27
capacity to serve the pro)ect’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider~s existing
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
X
X
No
impact
X
X
v
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting information
Resources
Sources ’Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
commitments? ......
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to 2,28 X
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
X
X
X
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations 2,28
related to solid waste?
XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal 1,2,4,6,
community, reduce the number 7,26
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that areindividually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are 1,2,4
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
Qf probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse 1-30
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Page 15
SOURCE REFERENCES:
!0.
il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
,28.
29.
30.
Projec~ Planner’s 1.mowledge of the site
Palo >alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. Parenthetical reI%rences indicate maps
found in the Comprehensive Plan
Palo A_lto Municipal code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Project Plans, entitled "Sunrise at Sheridan Avenue", dated, January 22,
2004prepared by Mithun, !nc.
Project Description by Mithun, Inc., dated December 8, 2003
Landscape Design Intent by Gates & Associates, dated December 9, 2003
Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan, Ralph OsterIing Consultants, Inc., October
17, 2003
Project Description and Environmental Assessment Worksheet, January 15, 2003
Transpo~ation Impact .amalysis, Fehr & Peers Associates, September 2003, Final
TLA Jmnuary 2004
Noise Impact Evaluation, Wi!son, Ihrig & Associates, December 8~ 2003
Phase’ i and Limited Phase II Environmemal Site Assessment.. Klem~da,~, ~ " ~ ~
September 9, 2003
Feasibiliry-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Kieinfelder, September 9, 2003
Soil Management Plan, Kleinfelder, Janum-y 23, 2004, revised Janum3..~ 27, 2004
Dewatering Workplan, Kleinfelder, January 23, 2004
Well destruction documentation, Kteinfelder, January 23, 2004, Santa Clara
Valtey Water District, Janua.D’ 27, 2004
California Reg-ionai Water Quality Control Board, letter Januao~ 27.. 2004
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake faulz Zoning Map
Ci~ of Paio Alto, Building Inspection Division memorandmn, January 27, 2003
City ofPalo ,~dto,
City of Palo _alto,
City of Palo Al~o,
City of Palo Alto,
Cit7 of Palo Alto,
.~ anuar3, 14.2003
CiU of Palo Alto,
Ci~ of Palo .alto,
City of Palo Alto,
City of Palo .alto,
January 23.
City of Palo .alto,
CiD~ of Palo .alto,
27, 2004
CiD: of Palo Alto,
Utilities Department - Elecwic memorandum, JanumD, 16, 2003
Utilities - Marketing se~,ices memoranaum, Januao~ 16, .~00~
Fire memorandum,. Januao~ 29, 2003 and August 21, 2003
Housing, Janua:D, 15, 2003
Planning, E1 Camino Real Desi~ Guidelines, memorandum,
Public Wor~ Engineering Division, February 19, 2003
Public Wor~ Operations/%rees, May 5, t903
Ptanning arborist memorandum, October 20, 2003
Public Works Water quaiity~nvironmenta! Compliance,
Public Works Operations, January 16, 2003
Transpo~ation Division memoranda, October ~,~, 2003. January
Fire Dept - Environmental Protection, Januao~ 28, 2004
Page 16
EXq’LANATION FOR CI:[ECI,f_~IST RESPONSES:
I.Aesthetics
The proposed project is required to meet the Ci~ of Palo Alto development standards and
review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review
Board to ensure that the new. construction would be compatible, harmonious and
appropriate to the site and surrounding development. The proposed project meets the
provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, PC - Planned Community
District and Section 18.64.030(a)(2)(A) that requires the elimination of glare and light
spillover beyond the perimeter of the development.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
II. A~cultural Resources
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of
Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Pro~am of the California Res6urces Agency. The site is not zoned for
a~m-icultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None required
III. Air Quality
The California Re#onal Water QualiD Control Board submitted the following analysis
of possible pollutants at the subject propert3,, dated January 27, 2004 (Source Reference
#16). The subject property is located down ~adient from the former Hewlett Packard site
at 640 Page Mill Road and the former Varian Medical Systems site at 60I California
Avenue. Chorinated solvents including Trichloroethylene (TCE) released at these sites
polluted soil and ~oundwater, with goundwater pollution extending offsite and under
the subject property.
Activities to reduce the concentrations of pollutants have been conducted at both source
sites for over t5 years and groundwater samples in the viciniD~ of the subject property are
collected annually and biennially. The concentrations of pollutants have been decreasing
over time. The most recent groundwater samples indicate that the concentration of TCE
in the goundwater under the subject property is less than 20
Samples were collected directly from the subject propert3.~ as described in Phase I and
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, September 9, 2002 (Source Reference
#11). Groundwater. was sampled from three monitoring wells and one boring at up
gadient locations. Based on ReNonal Water Board Environmental Screening Levels, the
chlorinated solvents present in the goundwater a~ the concentration levels found as a
result of these tests will not be a significant source of indoor air vapors that would impact
Page 17
the proposed development of the prope~’~.’, in addition, the presence of an .under~ound
parking garage will ere.ate a si~mxificant barrier to vapor intrusion of soi!~ gases to the
residential units..~_lso; groundwater comamination at these levels would not pose a
s1~m-nIlcanL health threat "to conswaczion workers.
Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon
monoxide generation in the Bay Area. The projea proposes to build a residential
complex that is consistent with the policies of the PC zoning district and Comprehensive
Plan. The trips .generated by the proposed use do not require a permit from the Bay Area
Air Quali~ Management District.
CiD~ developmen~ standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential
negaive impacts of the project to less than si~mifican~.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
1~r. Biolog-ical Resources
No endangered,, "~reatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified
a,, the project site. The site is developed with some mature landscaping including street
~r~s. Four trees (#961. 965. 956. 967 - Source Rez%rences #7. 26)have been
recommended for preservation. Conditions of approval for the proposed project require
the developer to obtain approval by the Ci~ Arborist prior to the issuance of a.building
permit for; (a) *abe removal and/or relocation ofre~tated and protected trees per the Palo
.~o Tree Technical Manual, P_a~vlC, Section 6.30 and 2.00; (b) for the landscape
planting and irrigation plan; and (c) for tree protection measures during construction
phases of the project that must compty with and Tree Preservation and Management
Reg-ulations, PAMC Sections 8104, 8.t0 and !6.48.120(a)(11).
Cit)j development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential
n~_at~v~ impacts of the projec~ to less than simak%ant.
1Vaitigation Measures: None required.
V. Cultural Resources
The project site is currently vacant and was formerly developed with mixed urban uses.
There are no tmown cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Ptan indicates that
the project site is located within an ArchaeoloNcal Resource Area of moderate
sensitivity, in the event of accidental discovery of archaeoioNcai resources on the site,
work at the place of discovery sha!! be halted immediately and a qualified archaeoloNst
retained to evaluate the fred. At the applicant’s expense the quaBfied archaeologist will
perform an archaeoloNcal reconnaissance .and develop mitigation measures to protect
archaeoloNcal resources. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the
site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately who will
Page 18
determine if the remains are those of a Native American. All subsequent actions and
mitigation measures shall comply with Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VI. Geolo~T and Soils
A Feasibili~’-Level Geotechnica! Investigation for the proposed development was
conducted in September of 2002 (Source Reference #12). No si~maificant geotectmica!
issues were found that would preclude the proposed desi~m and development. Conditions
of approval for the project require the preparation of a supplemental geotechnical and
soils report for the project site prior to the application for a building permit. All new
construction shall comply with the provisions of the geotechnical report and with the
provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event
of an earthquake.
Cit3~ development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential
negative impacts of the project to less than sQmaificant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not desQmaated as a high fare hazard within the City and is not
desi~maated as a wildland. The new construction and site desi~ma shall be required to
comply with the City’s building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fare
protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
As discussed in Section III, Air Quality, the subject site is do-¢~ Kadient from known
contaminated sites that may cause ~oundwater and/or soil contamination at the subject
property. Three related monitoring wells on the subject site were destroyed in accordance
with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SC\,W\rD) re~lations in 2002 (Source Reference
#15). The ReNonal Water QualiD, Control Board issued a letter, Januar3.: 27, 2004 that
conftrms that there are no adverse impacts at the site due to the ~oundwater
contamination from the off-site sources (Source Reference #16).
The subject site was previously a retail fuel station prior to 1985. A fuel reiease was
reported at the site in 1990. Two 4,000-gallon and one .2,000-gallon gasoline
undergound storage tanks were removed in 1990. The site is now closed by the
SC\,Wv’D. Concentrations of hydrocarbon constituents are below levels of concern, for
residential land use. (Source Reference #14).
Page 19
The proposed Smnrise faciliD~ will have an under~ound partdng garage which will
require excavation up to approximately 8 to 10 feet below ~ade. Measured depth to
wa~er at the site is reported at 1 g to 23 feet below g-round surface (Source Reference #!4).
Therefore it is unlikely that ~oundwater will be encountered dm-~mg the consu"uction
activities. A Dewatering Workplan for Construction Activities at the subject site, 1anua_D~
_~, 2004 (Source Reterence ~,!4) outlines the applicable procedures for removal of
contaminated ~oundwater in the event that it is encountered. If encountered,
contaminated ~ound ~’ater is a potentia!ly si~m~ificant enviromnental impact to
consWaction workers and furore residents on the site.
Phase I and-Limited Phase H Environmental Site Assessments (Source Reference #11)
report some lead contaminated soil due to prior-uses of the site. A Soil Management Plan,
January 27, 2004 (Source References #13) outlines adequate procedures for the remova!
of the lead contaminated soil. The contaminated soil is a potentially sig~:fificant
environmental impact to the construction workers and future residents of the site.
Mitigation Measure \, ~’!I-!"
A Dewatering Workplan for Conslruction Activities at 465 and 475 Sheridan Avenue and
2701 and 27!1 E1 CamJno Real, Palo Alto, .California was reviewed by the CiD, of Palo
Alto’s Environmental Protection Division, January 28, 2004 (Source Ret%rence #30) and
found to be adequate. The Dewatering Workplan (Source Reference #14) shal! be
followed in its entireD; during the development of the subject site and remedial actions
~aken as prescribed in the Plan. These actions serve as :appropriate and-adequate
mitigations for the poten-~ially significant environmental impacts associated with the
possibiiit3j of encountering contaminated ~oundwater at the subject site. The actions will
be monitored by .the Ci~, of Palo Alto Fire-Department Environmental Protection
Division and must comply-with all City, reNonal and sra~e regulations, as appropriate.
Impact after Mitigation: Less than Si=~nificant
Mitigation Measure \~-2:
A Soil Management Plan for Construction Activities at 465 and 475 Sheridan Avenue
and 2701 and 2711 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CaIifomia was reviewed by the City,. of
Palo Alto’s Environmental Protection Division, Janua_D’ 28, 2004 (Source Reference #30)
and .found io be .adequate. The Soil Management Plan (Source Reference #13) shall be
followed in its entirety during the development of the subject site and remedial actions
taken as prescribed in the Plan. These actions sere as appropriate and adequate
mitigations for the potentially sigmificant environmentai impacts associated with the 1cad-
contaminated soil at the subject site. The actions wii! be monitored by the Cib~ of Palo
Alto Fire Department Environmental Protection Division and must comply with all Cib~,
re~onal and state regulations, as appropriate.
impact after Mitigation: Less.than Significant
Page 20
V!I!. Hydrolo~, and Water Quality
The project will not substantially deplete goundwater supplies, nor will it substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern or storm water ran-off of the already developed site..
The Ci~7’s PuNic Works Department requires the project to meet specific conditions of
project approval that require compliance with Ci~,, State and Federal standards pertaining
to water qualiD~ and waste discharge and storm water run-off.
City development standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential
negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
IX.Land Use and Planning
The proposed development complies with all develop standards for the PC zoning district
and complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies for residential development.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
X. Mineral Resources
The project will not impact kno~ mineral or locally-important mineral resources.
XI. Noise
A Noise Impact Evaluation for the proposed development was prepared by Wilson, Ihrig
and Associates, December 8, 2003 (Source Reference #10) that examined existing noise
levels at the site and future noise from the proposed development from traffic and
mechanical equipment sources. The report examined the design and placement of
mechanical equipment and found that the project would be consistent with the
requirements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Noise Ordinance. Under normal
operating conditions, neither the project generated traffic nor the mechanical ventilation
equipment would cause conflict with the requirements of the Ci~,.
Al! development of the site shall comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter
9.10 PAMC, as amended, and shall be required to follow standard construction
techniques and best management practices.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XII. Population and Housing
The proposed development is required to comply with the CiB~’s Below Market Rate
(BIvIR) progam of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan that require at least
15% of all housing units in a project of 5 or more units be provided at below market rates
to veo~ low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The proposed Sunrise development
Page 21
would have a total of 81 units that equates to 12.!5 B_M]< units. Due to the natm-e of the
proposed development as a s=~nior assisted living complex, the d~vetoper would provide
ele~en slo~s (or s~aces for individuals within the residential make-up of the complex) and
additional services as deemed adequate by the CiD, that would be comparable in effect to
12.15 separate B!VIR units.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
X~. Public Services
Fire
The project site is not located in a high fL-e or wiidlands tire area. The project would be
required to meet Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a buitding
permit.
MAtigation Measures: None required.
PoIice
The project would no, alter the use of the site or result in theneed for additional police
officers, equipment, or facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Schools
The project is subject to fees established by the Palo Alto UNtied School District. The
fees would be due at the time of the issuance of a building permit
Mdtigation Measures: None required.
Parks and ~ ubnc Facflm~.s
The project is subject ~o Cit7 fees for par~, communiD, sere,ices and tibrm--ies. The total
fee for the proposed project is $270,190.80.
lviitigafion Measures: None required.
)~-V. Recreation
The proposed Sunrise development a~s~m mcluaes two pocket parks on site that are for
use by both the residents of Sunrise and the general public. The complex has ample in-
house recreafionai faciiifies and programs, as well as a punic ~"m~.~tm~ space for non-
resident seniors.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Page 22
X’Xr. Transportation
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by Fehr and Peers
Transportation Consultants in September 2003. A revised, final TLA was submitted in
JanuarT 2004. A follow-up study TIA was conducted in October 2003 that concluded
that the correct rip generation rate was used in the September analysis, the parking count
was verified, and the trip assignment on Sheridan was verified.
The TIA evaluated the potential impacts of the project (81 residential assisted living units
for up. to 97 residents) on the surrounding transportation system. A focused analysis was
performed Wen that the project generates less than 100 new peak hour trips on the
roadway network (9 morning [AM] and 28 evening [PM] peak hour trips). The study was
conducted following the guidelines set forth by the City of Palo Alto.
Operations at the following key intersections in the study area were evaluated during the
AM and PM peak periods:
1.California Avenue/El Camino Real
2.Cambna~.e Avenue/E1 Camino Real
3.E1 Camino Real!Page Mill Expressway
4.Page Mill Expressway/Hanover Street
5.Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
Additionally, a residential street analysis was conducted for the segment of Sheridan
Avenue west of Ash Street.
Based. on Sunrise specific trip generation raes, the proposed 81-unit facility is expected
to generate 280 daily trips., including 9 AM peak-hour trips and 28 PM peak-hour trips..
The TIA used the significance criteria developed by the-CitT of Palo Alto and found no
si~m~ificant impacts to the level of service at any of the study intersections with the
addition of project traffic, no si~maificant increases in critical movement delay at the key
intersections, and no si~a~ificant increase in traffic on Sheridan .Avenue, west of Ash
Street.
However, the increase of daily traffic on Sheridan east of the project site would be
approximately 22 percent. This is closely approaching the significance threshold of 25
percent increase on a local residential street. City staff reviewed these findings and
concluded that the 25% impact threshold does not represent a serious impending impact,
because this threshold came from research indicating that a 25% increase is the bare
minimum noticeable to residents (TIRE Index and Donald Appleyard research). Thus,
staff concludes that, even thou~ the impact is essentially at the threshold, this project
does not cross the threshold to an?, noticeable degee, and therefore does not produce a
significant impact in this regard.
Page 23
The above conclusion is based on trb. =..n~.at~on analysis that assumes a 5 percent m, ip
redt~ction factor because the project is providing subsidized transit passes for all
employees who wish one. This reduction is permitted by the Santa Clara Congestion
Management Agency ~rTA) based on its research and is embodied in the V-I’A’s
Trans~oKation Impact Analysis Guideiines. May 7, 1998, Table 4. As noted in Footnote
8 of that-table, the subsidy must be available to all employees and must at least equal the
m -aximum transit subsidy allowable under the 1992 National Ener~, Policy Act.
Providing this subsidy to employees allows the 5 percent trip reduction factor to be
appIied to the fall u~ip generation of the project and is a required mitigation (see below).
The TIA concludes that the project will provide.suf~Scient partdng on site for all users,
based on an analysis of parking space demand p~r resident, which is more conservative
than space per occupied unit.
To reduce the impact of truck double parWing on Sheridan, and to reduce the loss of
parking on Sheridan, the project must have a 60-foot loading zone on E! Camino Real. it
is acceptable to use the existing public curb spaces for this purpose. The 60,foot loading
zone on El Camino Real is a Condition of_%~proval for the project.
The CiU~ ofPalo A_lto Trm~sportation Planning Dh,ision reviewedthe findings of the TL4
and, with the implementation of the transit subsidy mitigation, found no si_~_ificant
impacts due to traffic volume and level of service, vehicle and bicycle partdng supply,
traffic circulation or traffic related design features of the project. The complete final
January 2004 Fehr and Peers TL~_. repor~ is included in the project files, Cib~ of Palo
Department of Planning and Communi~ Environment.
CiD’ development.standards and specific conditions of project approval reduce potential
negative impacts of the project to less than si~aificant. However, because net trips are
proposed, the project will be subject to payment of Transportation impact Fees appiicable
at the time of building permit issuance per the resolution adopted by Cit)j Councii on
Februar?~ 2, 2004. A condition of approval will address this new fee.
Mitigation Measure ~,r-1’
The developer shall provide fally paid transit passes for any employee who wishes one.
impact after Mitigation: Less than Significant
X-vL Utilities and Service Systems
The project would not si[m_ificantty increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Page 24
M.42qDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project will not substantially decade ~ahe surrounding environment, impact
wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important exampies of cultural history or
pre-history. The project would be required to comply with the Mitigation Measures VII-1
and VII-2 that specif-y a soil management plan for contaminated soi! and a dewatering
plan for an?" possible contact with potentially contaminated ~oundwater at the site. The
project must also comply with Mitigation Measure XV-1 that requires transit subsidy
passes for employees. These mitigations would reduce the level of potentially significant
to less than si~.maificant impacts on the quality of the environment. Additionally, the
project will not create considerable cumulative impacts when viewed in connection with
past, current and probable furore projects, because (!) it is an infil! development
previously urban developed land and is located in an area that is largely developed, and
(2) there are no currently approved projects in the City of Palo Alto in the vicini~, of the
project site. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Page 25
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning ann
Community Enviornment
Attachment C
April 6, 2004
Via Fax & Mail
Planning DMsion
Dan Zemanek
Senior Vice President
Sunrise Development, Inc.
249 View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Subject:2701 E1 Camino Real - Sunrise Assisted Living Project
Summar3~ of Below Market Rate (BM_R) Program and
Assisted Living Services Public Benefits Agreement
(File No. 03-PC-02)
Dear Dan:
Attached is the sumanary of the proposed. BMR pro~am and assisted living
services a~eement that staff is recommending to the Plarming and
Transportation Commission and Cit3~ Council. The Commission will review
the proposed BMR and public benefit provisions as part of its review of your
project application. The Ci~, CounCil has the final authoriD’ to approve the
content of the BMR and public benefits a~eement. The provisions described
in this summary, including any revisions that may be approved by CounciI,
will be incorporated into a formal BMR regulatory a~eement that must be
executed by Sunrise and the City and recorded against the property prior to
construction.
Please sign below to indicate your acceptance, as the authorized
representative of the applicant, of the BMR and related public benefit
provisions as stated in the attached summary. Your signed letter, together
with the summary will be part of the Commission and Council packets.
Thank you for your time and effort in working with staff to develop an
assisted Iiving progam for very low and low-income seniors in the Sunrise
project.
Frinted v, fth soy-isased inks on 100% re~’cled paper processed without c.hiorme
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.3292_~A
650.3292154
z/STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning & Communib~ Environment
2701 E1 Camino Real
Sun~e Assisted Li~4ng
Enclosure: Summaw of Below Market P~te (BMR) Pro~am
A~..,,m,,m and Assisted Livin_._ Sen,ices Public B ~nents .~.~=:~’~em~,m~"
As the authorized ~ ~ ~ " o , __epr~s,,ntauv,, of Sum-ise Development, Inc.. I a~ree to
prmdde the Below Market Rate proNam and related assisted living public
benefits as described in the attached sumrnm-y dated Ap~ ~-5"7 2004.
Daniel F. Ze~"anek -Dine
Senior Vice President
Sum’ise Development, !nc.
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Offdal
Amy !arench, Currem Planning Manager
Russ Reich, Associate Planner
""June Capor~o, Aavance ’
Catherine Siegd, Housing Coordinator
Dan Sodergen, Office of the Cib~ Attorney
Marlene ~.- ’= g .~,~na~r_ast. Executive Director, Pato Alto Housing
Corporation
Linda Mabu, BIvIR Adminis:aior, Palo A_lto Housing Corporation
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 1 of 24
Sunrise Assisted Living Project at 2701 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA
Summary of Below Market Rate (BM2~) Program Agreement
& Assisted Living Services Public Benefits Agreement
April 6, 2004
Introduction:
This is a summary of the provisions of the BMR a~eemem for Sunrise Assisted Living
Project. These provisions will be incorporated into a forma! BMR Regulatory Ageement to
be executed by Sunrise and the CiDr of Palo Alto after final approval of the project by the CitT
Council. This summary must be included in the staffrepo~ packet reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Commission as part of its final decision on the Project. This summary
must also be included in the Ci~, Council’s agenda packet for its review and decision on the
Project.
Approval of a rezoning to a Planned Communi~, (PC) zone (03-PC-02) is necessary to allow
the project to be built on this site. The developer has ageed to provide affordable rental
housing for 12 very low and low-income assisted living residents in satisfaction of the
Project’s BMR pro~am requirement. The developer has also a~eed to provide reduced
pricing of board and care services that will be affordable to the BMR residents as the Project’s
principal public benefit to meet the Planned Community zone requirements.
The 0.98-acre Project site is listed on the Housing Sites Inventory of the Housing Element.
The site is one of few vacant, multi-family housing sites in the CiD~ andcould accommodate
family housing, which is a targeted housing prioriD’ for the City. Developed under the
existing RM-40 zoning, the site would produce a minimum of 30 housing units and, with
densiD, bonuses, a maximum of about 55 units, including from 5 to 9 BMR units; the BMR
units would provide housing for about !2 to 25 persons in family households. However, City
staff has determined tha~ the proposed use of 60-units of senior assisted living housing and
appro "ximately 27 beds for dementia care, serving up to a maximum of 97 residents with 12
BMR residents, is consistent with the Housing Element.
~) B_MR. Roq,,i,-omon* per la,’,N,’~m H-36 of the
2002:
@
Project has a 15% BM~ requirement
The project includes 60 units of assisted living housing and approximately 27-beds for
dementia care located on 4 floors as shown on the plans submitted on February 26, 2004
for ARB and Planning Commission approval.
H:kDOC~BM~R ProgramkSunfise Final 4-6-04 Rex, BIv[R Agrmt Summary.doe
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page. ~ of 24
Staff has determined that residents, rather than units, will be. allowed to satis~’ the BMR
requirement
The required number of B~v’~ units is 12.15 units (81 units times 15%). Sunrise a~ees to
set aside 12 spaqes wi*dfin the 60 assisted living units for occupancy by 12 qualified Blv~
residents.
Sum-ise will reduce the "housing or rental occupancy" portion of its month!y charges to
affordable levels so that 12 very low and low-income persons can afford to occupy units in
the project under the BMR rental pro~am; S{aff agrees that this will satis~7 the BMR
requirements of ProgTam H-36 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Public Benefit Requirement to Satisfy Planned CommunitT Zone:
¯ Of the five public benefits proposed by Sunrise for the rezoning to PC, the subsidy of the
monthly charges for board and care (meals, activities, transpo~ation, assistance with daily
living, etc.) for "the 12 BMR residems is the major one in terms of its monetary value over the
59-vear term. of the BMR agreement. Sunrise esfimams that the monetary value of the
pro~arn (including both housing and seladCes) is approximately $3.2 million over 59-years.
3) Exclusion of Dementia Care from the B1VIR Program at .Sunrise:
The project provides 60’units of assisted living housing on floors one, two andfour, and 2 !-
units for dementia care located exclusively onthe 3~a floor of the building. Physically, the
third floor could be conve~ed from dementia care to assisted Iiving at some tater date without
r~mod,Am_. Sunrise states that due to the intensiw of care and the hi-~herlevel of services
provided, it is infeasible to o~%r reduced monthly charges to residents in the dementia care
pro~am.
Staff and Sunrise ageed that only residems receiving assisted living services would be elig-ible
for the BMR progam. There will not be BMRrates or BMR subsidies for residents receiving
dementia care. Under this a~eement, BMR residents that move into the project in the assisted
living progam, .and then evenmally need.to enter the dementia care progam, will have to pay
market rates for their rent and services in the dementia care progam.
4) Sharing of Units by B~. o,~a,~nts and Market Rate Residents:
, Sunrise states that they intend to offer shared occupancy of alI unit t3~oes by both unrelated ’
and related persons at lower rates than private occupancy. Sum4se says that many of their
residents prefer the companionship of shared occupancy, in addition io the financial savings.
Sunrise states that overall, approximately 20 to 25% of their assisted iiving residems
nationwide are occupying shared units.
H:LDOCkBMR Pro_m-arn~Nunrise Final 4-6-04 Key BM~P. A_m-mt Summary.dos
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 3 of 24
8 of the !2 BIvIR Residents May Be in Shared Units: In order to make assisted living
affordable to very low and low-income persons, staff ageed that up to 8 of the 12 BMR
residents (as shown in Table 2) may be housed in units where they are sharing with another
person. The BMR residents may share with a market rate resident or with another BlVIR
resident.
Private occupancy must be provided for the remaining 4 BMR residents (the Low Income,
up to 80% of AMI residents, as shown in Table 2). The private units shall be "Studio" or
"Single" units ranging from 325 square feet to 399 square feet in size. However, only one
"Studio" unit (i.e. a unit smaller than 350 square feet) shall be used for private occupancy by
this categoiT of B1VW~ resident.
¯ BMR residents may not be required to share with another BMR resident, but shall be
assigned a unit for occupancy as units are available, without consideration to whether the other
resident is, or is not, in the BMR progam, unless the BMR resident specifically requests
sharing with a particular BMR resident.
5) Distribution of B1VIlt Residents on All Assisted Lixdng Floors and Locations of BM~R
Units:
BMR residents will be offered units on all three assisted living floors (Floors !, 2 and 4) as
closely as possible to the proportion of the total units located on each of these three floors,
(See Table 1).
6) Initial Designation of BMR Units; Future Changes and Adjustments:
¯ CiW Approval of Initia! Locations for BMR Units on Final Floor Plans: The BMR units
shall be desigllated on copies of the final floor plans submitted for the building permit. The
Director of Planning shall approve this initial designation of units, prior to issuance of the
building permit for the project. The types of units that may be used for BMR resident
occupancy shall be described in a chart similar to Table 2. Table 2 will be included in the
recorded BMR ageement, but actual unit numbers will not be desi=o-nated in that ageement, as
it is e\Dected that the actual units occupied by BIvIR residents wi!! change over the te,rm of the
BMR ageement. In order to distribute the BMR residents proportionately by floor (1st - .3
persons, 2nd- 5 persons, and 4th - 4 persons) a mix of different types of units may need to be
used by Sunrise for the BMR residents. Table 2 shows the types of units that may be occupied
by BIvlR residents on a shared basis and private occupancy basis, (subject to final approval by
the Director):
H:U3OCU3MR Prograrn\Nunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BM]% Agrmt Summary.doc
Revhsed: April 6, 2004
Page 4 of 24
Sum-’ise may make aajusrm,mts in the distribution of BMR residents by floor from time to
time, if there are not appropriate vacant units availabie on a floor or to accommodate the
specific needs of BMR residents, with the prior written approval of the City or its desi=maee.
However, Sunrise shall correct any imbalance in the distribution of BMR residents per floor,
as remover and unit vacancies allow.
¯ Sunrise may substitute private occupancy in "Studio" (325 square fee0 units or "Small
Singles:’ (under 400 square feet) for any of the 8 Veu Low or Low-income B1V~ residents,
instead of placing these residents in shared occupancy units. Sunrise may alsc~ substitute
shared occupancy in other unit Dpes for these residents as shown on Table 2. However, the
monthOy charges for the resident shall remain at the same rate for the resident’s income
caegory.
¯ Low Income (80% AMi) categoD, BMR residents must be provided with private
occupancy with no more than one of the four units being a "Studio" (a unit smaller than 350
square :feet shall be considered a Studio"). Normally, this category of BMR residents shall be
placed in "Small Single" units; however, these BMR residents may be ~ven occupancy in
other larger units as shov~ on Table 2. The only Low Income (80% ,a2vK) BMR residents in
unitswi~ ~-o-persons wil! be income-qualified married couples or other two-person, related
households.
7) Income Limits at Initial Occupancy and at Annual Reeerfificafion of Income:
¯ Applicants for the BMR pro~am will need to quali~, within maximum income and asset
limits. Residents must be recertifled annually to remain qualified for the special lower
monthly charges provided by the BMR pro~am.
There will be three (3) different income levels or categories for the 12 residents served by
the Sunrise BMR prowam:
¯Ve.ry low-income (Below 50% of Area Median Income): 4-Blv~ residents
¯(Lower) Low income (Below 60% of Area Median Income): 4-BMR residents
¯(Hi~er) Low income (Below 80% of~ea Median Income): 4-BlVIR residents
¯ The Area Median J_ncome (Alvg) used for all calculations shall be the median income for
Santa Clara County as published (usually annually) by the Department of Housing and
.Community Development of the State of California (State HCD) for a 4-person household
(the 100% ofAMS). The State punishes income timits by household size using the following
household size adjustment factors:
o 1-person household:0.70 times the 4-person, !00% ,&MI income
o 2-person household:0.80 times the 4-person, !00% A_MI income
HADOC~BMR Pro~am~Sunrise Final 4-6-04 Key BIv~ ~t Summary.doe
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 5 of 24
¯ The City will prepare updated income limits for use in the Sunrise BMR progam annua!ly
(usually in the Spring) after State HCD publishes revised Area Median Income figaxres.
¯All income limit calculations shall be rounded to the nearest $50
¯ Table 8 describes the income limit calculations for the categories of very low, low and
moderate-income levels that apply to this BMR a~eement and which shal! be used by Sunrise
to qualify applicants and recertif3, existing BMR residents. Other very tow and low-income
limits as may be published from time to time by HUD or State HCD for the purposes of the
CDBG or Section 8 progam shall not be used for administration of the BMR pro~am at
Sunrise.
¯ Higher income limits apply at annual recertification. The income bracket that is 20
percentage points higher than the one the resident qualified under at admission to the BMR
pro~am at Sunrise is the one to be used for recertification. An existing Sunrise BMR
resident’s income (as defined in this a~eement) may increase and the resident will still be
qualified for the monthly charges of their initial income catego~,.
For example, a resident that entered under the very low-income, 50% of AMI goup, may
have his or her income increase up to 70% of AlVlI upon annum recertificafion. Table 3
sho’~s the three income category ~oups and the current (2004) initial income limits and the
current income limits for recertification.
8) Income and Asset Ce~ificatiom
Each BMR resident’ s household income and assets mus~ be certified annually according to the
procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental assistance progam, or successor pro~am, except as
modified in the BMR ageement for the Project or by future revisions to CiV’s BIv~ pro~am
~maidelines and procedures. Sunrise shall have applicants, and existing residents being
recertified, prepare documentation of their income and assets for review by Ciny. The City
will review and approve the income certification, and annual recertification, documentation
and make the final determination of a person’s eligibilit3.~ for the BMR pro~am.
Specific Income and Asset Certification Provisions:
¯ All of the applicant’s (or resident’s) taxable and non-taxable goss income shall be
included in determining whether the person qualifies for the BIv~ progarn and for which of
the three income category goups.
H:LDOCkBMR Program~unrise Fina! 4-6-04 Rev BMR A_m-rat Summary.doe
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 6 of 24
¯ >.mounts paid by relatives or other persons for the applicant’s (or resident:s) living
expenses and support shall be included in the "total ~oss income.
Table 4 shows examples of income and assets (both taxable and non-taxable) that must be
included for certification purposes..
12hrote: the foHowhzg provision needs to be anal3~ed by the City’s BM_R consultant for
effectiveness and f easibiiiO,]
Kules forOuahncatlon o~ B.vIR Armhca_nts / Residents That Keceives Substantial Financial
Surmort from Another Person:
¯ " If another person provides (or will provide, once the person resides at Sunrise) over 50% of
an applicant’s (or resident’s) financial support, then the total gTOSS income of the household of
the person providing the support wil! be the determining income to qualify the applicant (or
resident) for the BMR pro~am.. The amount of g-L_~ income provided as support, combined
with the applicant’s own :personal income, wil! not disqualify the person for the Blv~ program
provided that: the household income of the person providingthe support does not exceed
120% of-the AlvlI adjusted for household size.
For example, the hypothetical Smith family of 4 persons (2 adults and 2 children) has an
annual income of$115,000 per year (109% of.a2vII). Mr. Smith’s elderly mother, Ida, has an
income of only $20..000 per year and virtually no assets. Ida has applied for one of the very
Iow-income BMSR units m Sunrise. TheSmith familywill be providing over 55% of ida
support or $24,000 per year, including paying part of her monthly charges at Sunrise and all of
her other living expenses which incIude extensive medical and ck,-ug costs, ida’s mini expected
goss income of $44,000 (including fatuity support) exceeds the vet3; low-income limit of
$36,950, bu~ she still qualifies as a very low income BMR residem because her son wil! be
providing over half of her support and Mr. Smith’s household income is within 120% of the
AMt limit.
9) Significant Changes in Household Income Upon Recerthqcafion:
¯ A BMR resident whose income upon recertification exceeds that person’s applicable
income goup limit will no longer qualify-to pay monthly charges for that income goup. If the
,,~so,, quakfi.s for one hi~.-her B)&LR m~.~~oups, ÷~’~"~...~ the person .... ~.,- ~,,o~,,e~ ~° to pay
the hi_~er monthly rate and the City wilt still consider them one of the 12 required BMR
residents. Sunrise will offer the resident the opportuniD; to move to the type of unit allocated
io that higher income goups, when the ne~ such unit is vacant.
¯ A BMR resident whose income is verified as having declined upon annua! recertificafion to
such an extent that the resident qualifies for a lower income group than their cm-rem goup,
H:kDOCkBlvI:R Pmgram~gunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BiVIR Agrm~ Summary.dt~a
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 7 of 24
shall be offered (when the first vacancy occurs in the BMR progarn for such lower income
goup) the opportunity to pay the lower monthly charges for the income goup they are now
qualified for. Sunrise may require the resident to accept shared occupancy or to move to a unit
t3.:pe allocated to the lower income goup in order to obtain the reduction in monthly charges.
However, the maximum income upon recertification for all BMR residents is 100% of the
then-current AMI. Any BMR resident whose income exceeds 100% of the AM] upon
recertification shall be provided the opportunity, to remain in their unit, or to move to another
unit in the Project,. at Sunrise’s prevailing market rate charges. Sunrise shall then rent the next
available vacant unit of the appropriate unit type for the BMR pro~am to a qualified BMR
applicant to restore compliance with the BMR a~eement providing occupancy and services
for 12 BMR residents at the 3 different income levels.
Sunrise shall ~ve residents that become ineligible for their current monthly charges or for the
BMR progam, due to being over income, vMtten notification advising the resident:
(!) Of the mount of the increase of their monthly charges at least sixty (60) days in
advance of such increase becoming effective; and
(2) Of the oppornmities, if vacancies are available, to move to a unit that fits their income
category in the BMR pro..gram or to a non-BMR unit, if they exceed the BIvIR income limits.
10) Limitations on Assets:
Most residents of assisted living projects, unless their incomes are relatively high, such as
moderate or above moderate, can be expected to utilize a portion of their assets for their living
expenses and the monthly charges for assisted living.
¯ In order to target the BMR units to persons that are both: a) able to afford the BMR
monthly charges and other costs of living, and b) unlikely to be able to afford market rate
charges for assisted living, there will be asset limits that must be met to qualify for initial
occupancy and annual recertification. The maximum asset limits are sho~n in Table 5.
11) Maximum Monthly Charges for Ne~._....Z’ BMR Residents for Housing and Board and
Care Services:
The total monthly charges for housing and the basic board and care services (these are the
minimum assisted living services, including meals, activities, transportation, basic
assistance with daily living, etc. that must be purchased by all Sunrise residents) must be
affordabie to BlVlR residents at each income level, so that enough monthly income remains
to purchase other necessities of living.
H:LDOCLBIVIR Pro_m’~Sunrise Final 4-6-O4 Key BlvfR A_m-nat Summary.doe
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 8 of 24
Staff and Sunrise have. a~eed that the initial ma~_mum total monthly charges for housing
and board and care services for the fL~st 12 months of occupancy bY new BIvlR residents
will be:
The lesser of:
1) 75% of Sunrise’s month!y market rate charges i%r a comparable unit With
comparable occupancy (i.e. private or shared); or
2) The month!y charges per the income limit based calculation in Table 6
The initial maximum monthly charges for the fn’st occupancy of the project by the initial
12 BMR residents, calculated using the then-applicable area median income for Santa Clara
Coun~, as published by State HCD, shall be determined as of the date that is six (6) months
prior to the estimated (as provided by Sunrise to the City) issuanceofthe first Certificate of
Occupancy by the CiD~.
The intention in setting the limitations on total monthly charges is that BMR residents will
have at least about $1,000 p~.r month of disposable income for other expenses not prm~ided by
Sunrise, e.g., medical, dental, and drag costs, and otherpersonal needs. However, no ~o~aarantee
is being provided by Sunrise or the CiD~ that BMR reiidents will have an?, specific sum of
disposable :income for other living expenses.
Sunrise and staff a~eed that the income limit based formula for the total mon~ty charges
(for housing and care services) ~%r new BMR residents wi!l be:
¯One-w~etfth of 70% of 50% of the .aflVlI forthe 50% very low-income level units
¯One-twelfth of 75% of 60% of the A_MI for the 60% low, income level units, and
¯One-twelfth of80% of 80% of the A1Vfl for the 80% low-income level units
12) Definition of BMR Rent:
¯ The BIvIR rent is the portion of the total m -aximum monthly charges attributed to
occupancy of a BMR unit and it shall include any other charges related to occupancy of
housing such as charges for parking, storage, and utiliD~ charges that are not separately
metered or separately charged tomarket rate residents. For example, if parking spaces are
available to market rate residents only by payment of a separate charge, then parking spaces
shali be offered to Blv’~ residents on the same cost and terms as to market rate residents.
13) Amount of Base BMR Rent:
¯ The Base BMR rent (which will be established as of the date that is six (6) months prior to
the approximate date of issuance of the firs~ c~rtificate of occupancy for the project, which
shall be called the "Start Date") shall be set for cliff%rent goups ofunk types as shown in
H:kDOCkBMR Pro_re’am\Sunrise Fimfl 4-6-04 R~v BMI~ A_m-mt Summary..doa
Revised: April 6, 2004
Page 9 of 24
Table 7_2__. The Base BMR Rent shall be the initial rent charged as the "housing" portion of
the maximum monthly charges for the first 12 BMR residents to occupy the Project.
14) Increases In Total Monthly Charges for Existin~o BMR Residents:
¯ Subject to the overall limit that total month1?, charges may not exceed 75% of Sunrise’s
monthly market rate charges for housing, board and sen4ces for occupancy of a comparable
unit, annual increases in total monthly charges will be allowed for existina BMR residents.
The annual increases will be calculated separately for the rent and for the board and services
portion of the total charges.
¯ Initial charges for new BMR residents will be set using the methodolo~, as described in
Section 11, above: Maximum Monthly Charges for New BMR Residents for Housing and
Board and Care Services.
a) Increases In the Rent Portion of the Total Monthly Charges for Existin~ BMR
Residents:
Increases in the portion of the monthly charges attributable to rent shall be calculated annually
in order to become effective each July 1. Per the City’s procedures for BMR rental housing,
the annual rent increase shall not exceed an amount equal to one-half of the percenta_~e
increase in the Consumer Price Index for Al! Urban Consumers. Rent Residential. San
Francisco. Oakland area (Rent-CPI] from the prior ?,ear’s base Rent-CPI to the latest index
available as of the Calculation Date.
¯The following is a sample, hypothetical calculation of an annual rent increase:
1)
2)
3)
4)
CPI - Rent Residential Index Available as of April 1: 242.5
Less: Rent - CPI Index as of prior year’s April 1:(225.2)
Difference I7.3
17.3 / 225.2 = .00767 = 7.67% / 2 (one-half) = 3.8% equals the rent increase percent
Current rent paid by resident - $831 times 3.8% = $31.58 maximum rent increase
(Which is then rounded to $32.00)
New maximum rent = $863.00 [$831 + $32]
Sunrise shall contact the CiD7 for the determination of annual rent increases on April 1 of each
year. The CiU" will calculate the new maximum allowable rent using the above formula and
notif7 Sunrise of the permitted maximum rent increase. If the City does not noti~, Sunrise by
April 30 of the new maximum rent, Sunrise max, implement a rent increase that complies with
the formula in the Regulatory Ageement. For the initial year after completion and occupancy
of the BMR unit, the annual rent increase percentage shall be prorated from the Start Date to
H:’,DOOdBMR Program, Sunrise Final 4-6-04 Rcv BMR A_m-mt Summms,.doc
Revised:April 6, 201)4
Page 10 of 24
the following April 1, as nec.essm~ to account for the f~rst period of Rem-CPI index changes
being more or less than 12 months.
The resulting BIV~ rent is ~ae maximum applicable to existin~ BMR residents over the 12-
month period I%llowing the annual anniversm-3., of the each rent change. However, the ren~ for
an existin~ BMR resident may not be increased more than once in any 12-month period
regardless of whether the resident is renting under a month-to-month rental ageement or an
annual lease. Sunrise must provide the Blv~ residents with a 60-day minimum written
notification of any rent increases.
Rents less.than the maxXmum allowed may be charged for the BM~R units, at Sum4.se’s
discretion. However, Sunrise may not increase the rein for an existin~ BMR resident in excess
of the .amount allowed for the current year by the above annual Ren*-CPI change formula in
order to catch-up with rent increases no* taken in prior years.
b) Increases in the Board and Services Portion of Total Monthty Ckarges:
.Annua! increases for charges for board and services for e.xistin_~ B1V~ residents shall be
calculmed in the same manner and at the same time as the increases in the BMR rent, as
described above. However. the formula for increasin_~ the char_~,es for board and services shall
be the full oercenta_~e chan_~,e in the Consumer ?~ce Index for All Urban Consumers. San
Francisco. Oakland area (CPI3.
15) Charges for Higher Levels of Assisted Living Services (Above Basic or Level 1):
Sunrise a~ees to provide B_MR residents with its hi_~her_ levels of assisted livin_~,, s~r~ ~ ~’~.~s-~ at
more af~%rdable costs than the market rate r,.s~d,.n~s. The price reductions will be geater the
" lower the income oft_he BMR resident as follows:
o Very Low-Income (50% A_MI category) - 70% of market rate charges
o Lower Lo~:-tncome (60% AM1 category) - 75% of market rate charges
o Higher~Lo,~:-Income (80% .43vii category)- 80% ofmarke~ rate charges
16) PrioriU~ for Selection of BM2R Residents:
The following pre;%rences wili be used for selecting appiicants for participation in the
BMR progam in the project:
1) First, to applicants that are current residents within the ciB~ limits of the City of Palo
_r,.sments that are paying market rates).~to (this includes qualified oroject ~ "’
H:kDOCkB/vIR Pro_m-amkgunfis~ Final 4-6-04 Rev BMR. A_mTnt Summary.doc
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 11 of 24
2)Second, to applicants with an adult child or careNver that resides within the ci~, limits
of the City of Palo Alto
3)Third, to other qualified applicants
17) Waiting List & Selection of BMR Residents:
Sunrise shall be responsible for advertising vacancies in the BMR pro~am, providing
information to prospective BMR applicants and maintaining a waiting list for the BMR units,
if there is sufficient demand for the pro~am.
Sunrise shall publicize the BMR pro~am to create awareness among velT low and low-
income seniors residing in Palo Alto. Contacts shall be made, and information provided, on a
re__malar, ongoing basis with local managers of subsidized, independent living senior housing
projects and with providers of social services to seniors, such as Avenidas and La Comida.
Lnformation about the progam shal! also be regazlarly provided to local information and
referral agencies, public libraries and the City’s Family Resource Center.
18) Informational Materials:
Sunrise shall provide information in writing to interested households and to prospective
BMR residents at the time of submittal of an application for tenancy regarding the conditions
and restrictions applicable to occupancy of the BMR units. This information shall include: the
¯ current monthly rate for BMR rents and service charges for new BMR residents, the
methodoloNes and formulas for calculation of annua! increases in rents and service charges
for existing BMR residents, the qualifying income and asset limits and .the requirement for an
initial and annua! income certification, the three income limit goups for initial occupancy and
annual recertification, the one,year lease provision, the priority for Palo Alto households and
Sunrise’s waiting Iist procedures and standards for resident screening, and other relevant
information as Sunrise may desire or the City may require in the future. Penalties for
noncompliance with the BMR prograrn rules and requirements during the household’s tenancy
shall also be explained in the informational materials provided by Sunrise. Sunrise shall
submit all informational materials and forms of its rental ageements, leases, resident
handbook and rules for the project to the City for approval prior to use. If the City does not
COlm.ment or approve such materials within 30 days of sub_m_i~a! by Su.n_dse, then the materials
shall be deemed approved by the City.
19) Construction, Finishing, Amenities:
The BMR units shall be comparable in all aspects to the market-rate housing units
including, but not limited to, construction quality, appliances, cabinets, bathroom fixtures,
tt:XI)OCkBg~R. ProgramXNundse Final 4-6-04 Rev BMR Agrmt Summar3,.doc
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 12 of 24
appearance, flooring materials, finish work, amenities, storage units, parting spaces, and
access to all facilities. Par-king spaces for BMR residents shall be made available, on an equal
basis with the parking spaces for the market rate residents. Prior to occupancy of the BMR
units, the CiD’, or its desi_maee, shall inspect the BMR units to determine that the units meet the
construction and finishing standards stated in this Agreement and ~the CiD, Manager sha!l
approve the acceptance of the BIvl~ units into the pro2-ram.
20) Compliance with Other Laws:
¯ Al! applicable State and local laws and ordinances affecting the operation of rental housing
apply.’ to the operation of the BlvIR units. Norwithstandin_ any languag~ to the contrary in
Section 9.68.020(d) of the PAlVIC, the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the
requirement to o~r the resident a one- year lease, shall apply to the BMR units.
¯ Nom~ithstanding the foregoing, such laws and ordinances shall app!y to the operation of the
BN’~ units only to the extent that the3; do not conflict with State laws governing ticensed
residential care faciIities for the elderly, as set forth in the California Health and Safe~ Code
and in Title 22 of the Ca!ifomia Code of Re=ouiations.
21) CiU"s Program Administrator:
The Department of Plann_ing and Cornmuniby Developmem administers the BMRpro~am.
The Ciry"s contract pro2-ram administrator for the BMR pro~am is the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation. The CiD, may assig-n an3; or a!I of the administrative duties for the BlvI~ pro~am
at Sunrise, including review, approval and monitoring functions, to its pro~am administrator
or other desi_maee.
22) .Sunrise M~y Contract for Administration of the B1V[R Program:
¯Subject to the City’s consent, Sunrise may contract with a qualified organization or
contractor with appropriate ~ ~ "~ ~ "~ ~" ~~xp,n~nc. m the administration oI affordable housm= progams to
ad ,minister the BMR-pro~am including ~ " o ~ " ....preparm= th~ mxormatmnai matenals, maintaining a
waiting iist, explaining the BMR pro=~am to interested persons and residents, reviewing the
selection of units for BMR occupancy, conducting the initial and armual income and asset
other related task. However, Sunrise, as the property owner, is responsible for compliance
with the BIV~ ageemem.
23) Annual Repo~ of BIVI~ Program:
H:UDOCIBMK Pro_m-ran\Sunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev Blv[R Agrmt Summary.dos
Revised:April 6., 2004
Page 13 of 24
Sunrise shall prepare and submit to the City on an annual basis a report covering the
statistics about the BMR residents, the waiting list, the amounts charged for occupancy of
BMR residents and the published market rate residents in comparable units and other
information, in a form specified by the City.
24) City’s Right to Monitor and Audit the Sunrise BMR Program:
¯ The City, or its desi_maee, shall have the right to periodically monitor and audit Sunrise’s
management and implementation of the BMR progam to determine whether the correct
procedures and rules are being followed. The City may examine the residents’ income
certification files, veri~, that the correct BMR rates are being charged, review the desi_.~ation
of BMR units and monitor other matters as.necessary to determine compliance with the BMR
ageement. Sunrise shall cooperate fully with the City or its designee in the monitoring,
review and auditing of the BMR progam.
25) Enforcement of the BMR Agreement and Remedies for Noncompliance:
¯ Should the City fred that there is non-compliance with the BMR prod-ram requirements and
procedures, the City shall provide Sunrise notice in writing of the problems and an appropriate
period of time (depending on the nature of the problem) to achieve compliance with the BMR
ageement.
¯ If Sunrise does not achieve satisfactory compliance with the BMR pro~am ageement
within the time period set by the City, or if Sunrise demonstrates repeated, or an ongoing lack
of staff capacity and capability to administer the BMR progam, then the City reserves the
right to directly perform, review or contract with a third part3.." for the performance of any or all
of the administrative tasks necessa~, to implement the BMR pro~am. Such tas "ks may include
but are not limited to the preparation of informational materials, conducting the initial and
annual income and asset certifications, the calculation of total charges and annual increases
and other related tasks.
¯ Sunrise will remain completely responsible for selecting the BMR residents, determining
their suitability for assisted living, conducting Sunrise’s normal resident screening process
unrelated to the BIvlR progam, and enforcement of the terms of the tenancy a_qd_/or lease.
¯ Should the City fred it necessary to take over the administration of the BMR progam,
Sunrise agrees to reimburse the City for its costs of such administration at the City’s standard
billing rates for time, overhead and materials. The City may contract with a third part?" to
perform these tasks and Sunrise agees to reimburse the City for the costs of such contracted
work, in addition to the City’s costs for review and oversight of the pro~am.
H:kDOCkB/vIK ProffamkSunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BIvl~ Agxmt Summary.doc
Revised:A.priI 6, 2004
Page 14 of 24
The recorded B_MX P,.eg~tatory A~eement will contain a provision for the assessment of
penalties against Sum-ise for non-compliance with the BMP,. rules and requirements based on
~oss or deliberate negligence.or fraud in the administration of the BMR protein.
_The BtvlK conditions and restrictions shall also be inco~orated into each BMR resident’s
rental agxeement, which shall also include procedures by which Sunrise shall enforce resident
compliance with the requirements for occupancy of the Blv~ unit, such as cooperation with
the annual recertification process. The Cib, will not be a par~y to the occupancy a~eement
between the BMX resident and Sunrise.
26) Guidelines, Administrative Procedures and Interpretations:
_The CiD, may from time to time during the mrm of the BMRRe=malato~ A~eement adopt
or approve g-uidelines, procedures and imerpretafions affecting the implementation of the
BlvfR rental progam "in genera!, and its implementation in the Project, in particular. Provided
the costs are not unreasonable, Sunrise shall follow such revised guidelines, procedures and
instructions from CiD,, excep~chat f~e calculation of the maximum monthly charges for B1VK~.
Rein and Services and the d,~m~manon o, umt types mr B1VI~ resm~nt occupancy shN1 not be
changed without an amendment to the Regulatory Ageement, which shall require the consent
of Sunrise and CiD’.
27) Term of Agreement:
The term Of the recorded BMR Regulatou~ Ageement shall be 59 years commencing on
the date of f~rst occupancy of any portion of the Project.
28) Provision of BMR Agreement to be Binding on -Sunrise:
Sunrise and the Director of Planning and CommuniD, Environment hm,e discussed and
negotiamd the terms of*his ageement, and each pro-ties signature(s) on the attached letter
confirms their ageement with these provisions. The letter and this summary ageement will
be apart of the City Council’s agenda packet at its public heming on the project and
referenced ~ the Project’s conOtions of approval.
29) BMR Regulator’ Agreement to Be Recorded:
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the pr~ect,-a derailed BIvIR R%matao~,
A~eement shal! be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney based upon the CiU"
Council’s direction and action in approving the project. The BMR Regulatory A~eement wi!l
H:LDOCkI31vIR Pm~arn~Surtrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BlvIP. Agrmt Summm3’.do:
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 15 of 24
be executed by Sunrise and the City., and recorded against the property. The BMR Re~o~latory
Agreement will include the provisions of this summar3.: ageement with any modifications
made by the City Council. The BMR Regulatory Agreement will be a contractual obligation of
Sunrise and its successors in interest and shall run with the land. It is City policy to require
that lenders and other parties with secured interests in the Project subordinate their interests to
the City’s BMR Regulator?~ Agreement.
List of Attachments:
Table 1 - Distribution of BMR Residents Per Assisted Lh~ing Floor
Table 2 - Unit Types for BMR Program
Table 3 - Initial Income Limits and Income Limits Upon Annual Recertification of BMR
Residents; Formula & Examples for 2004
Table 4 - Examples of Income (Taxable and Non-Taxable) and Assets That Must Be
Considered to Determine Qualification as a BMR Resident at Sunrise
Table 5 - Maximum Asset Limits for BIvIR Applicants & Residents for 2004
Table 6 - Maximum Total Monthly Charges for Housing & Assisted Living Services Under
the Income Limit Based Formula & the Percent of Market Rate Charges
Table 7 - Base BMR Rent (the Ren~ Portion of Maximum Monthly Charges)
As of April 2004
Table 8 - Income Limits and AffordabIe Rent Standards for Sunrise Assisted Living for 2004
H:’tDOCLBMR Pro_~’am~Sunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BIviR. A_m’rnt Summao.’.doc
Revised:April 6, 201)4
Page 16 of 24
Table 1
Distribution of BMR Residents Per Assisted Living Floor
Units Per Assisted Living Floor
(3/5/04 Plans)
BMR Residents Per Assisted
Living Floor
1st Floor
...... (~ound leveI)
2n~ Floor
4m Floor
14-Units
(23 % ,of total assisted Iiving units)
23-Units
(_, 9 ~ of total assisted livin~ units)
_~-Umts
(38% of~otal assisted 1lying units)
3 BMR residents
(25% ofBMR residems)
5 BMR residents
(42% of BMR residents)
4 BMR residents
~0,"" ~(--~ ~o ofBMR resments)
TOT.a~LS 60 Assisted Living Units 12 BMR Residents
H:IDOCiBMR Progrmm\Surn-ise Finn 4-6-04 Key BMR Agrrm Summar3,.doc
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 17 of 24
Unit Types per 3/5/04
Plans
"Studios"
(325 st3
Small "Singles"
(< 400 st)
"Double Singles"
(400 sf to 450 sf)
Large "Singles" units
(400 sfto 499 sf)
Table 2 - Unit ,Types for BMR Program
Very Low
Total No.
by Floor
2"d - 1
4th - 3
lS~_2
2nd - 7
4th- 10
2nd- !
4th- 1
Total of
Each
Type
4
19
5
Very Large ~m_les-
(> 500 sf)4±2-2
1st- 2
2n~ - 3
4th- 0
4~n- 1
2nd - 8
4± - 5
"Denver" units
( 450 sf to 530 sf)
Small "Double" units
(440 sfto 490 sf)
Large "Double" units
(500 sfto 650 sf)
Totals (for 3 floors of
project)
i3
Income (up to
50% of AMI)
-4 BMR
Residents
X
(only one person
in unit)
x
(only one person
in unit)
X
(shared
occupancy
,permitted)
(shared
occupancy
permitted)
Low Income (up
to 60% of A1VII)
4 B1VIR Residents
X
(only one person in
unit)
x
(only one person in
unit)
X
(only one person in
unit)
X
(shared occupancy
permitted)
Low Income
(up to 80%
of AMI)
4 BMR
Residents
X
(only one of
this .type of
unit to be
used)
X
(only one
person in
unit)
X
(only one
person in
unit)
X
(only. one
person in
unit)
Premium Units - no* in use for BMR pro~am
X
(shared
occupancy
permiUed)
X
(shared
occupancy
permffted)
lSt-14; 3 BMR persons
9"d-93" 5 BMR personsth-~.~; 4 BMR persons
Total 60 Units
X
(shared
occupancy
permitted)
X
(shared occupancy
permitted)
X
(only one
person
unit)
X
(only 1
person in
unit)
Premium Units - Not in use for BMSR pro~am
BOLD trait types for each BlvIR income group are the
first choice .for occupancy and are used to set
maximum charges, but acceptable alternative unit types
and occupancies are shown. These can be substituted to
distribute the BMR residents per floor as required.
H:kDOCkBM~ Pro.m’am~Sunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BlV[R Agrmt Summary.doe
Re~fsed:April 6, 2004
Page 18 of 24
Table 3
Initial Income Limits and Income Limits Upon Annual Recertification of BMZE Residents
Formula & Examples for 2004
Income Limits for
Each Group of
BIvlR Residents
Very Low Income Group
Initial Azmuai Re-.zL~mual Re-~ial
Occupancy
60%
$ ,~,;300
$50,650
Lower Low Income
...Group ....
Higher Low Income
Group
Lrd~ial Annual Re-
Occul~ancy cert
59;:106 i $73,85o
$67,500.
,, Occupancy ,,. c~rt cert
50% AM1 I 70%.~/~ I ! 8o%.a&It
Number of One. ........~36,950 ~ $51,700 ....t ~59.aod ......
Perso~ ~Two $42,200 $59,100 $67,500
Household
!- B~ed on Febm~’2004 S~t~CI~a Co~, .~ of $ i 05,500 for .a 4-person household
H:kDOCLBMP, Pro~amkSumise Final ’4-6-04. !~v BMP, A_~rat Summary.doe
Rex4sed: April 6, 2004
Page 19 of 24
~ote - the City will be seeking the review and advice of its consultants on the BMR
Program Update Study that will be commencing by June 2004 on definitions of
income and assets for implementing the BMR program in assisted living]
Table 4
Examples of Income (Taxable and Non-Taxable) and Assets That Must Be Considered to
Determine Qualification as a BMR Resident at Sunrise
The HUD guidelines for the Section 8 rental assistance pro~am shall be used in calculating
income and assets, except as modified in this BMR a~eement and this Table 4.
Gross Income Will Include, but Not Be Limited To:
1) Pension income
2) Gross social security (before deductions for Medicare insurance)
3) Interest
4) Dividends
5) Capital gain distributions from mutual funds
6) Gross Annuity payments
7) Gross Distributions from IRA accounts
8) Distributions from 401 (k), 457 and other retirement savings plans
9) Net self-employment income (before depreciation)
10) Wages and Salary Income
! 1 ) All Net rental income from personal or real property (before depreciation)
12) Net profits from sale of investment assets such as stocks and bonds, if held for less
than 6 months
13) Gift income
14) Trust income
15) Payments from a long-term care insurance policy
16) If not included in the above list, income from assets (excluding the personal property
of the applicant) will be calculated at the geater of:
a. 2% per year times the market value of the asset, or
b. The actual net income produced by the asset
17) Other forms of income not specifically listed
T~ical Assets Subject to the Limitation on Assets:
1) Cash in bank accounts, savings, money market accounts, etc.
2) Mutual funds
3) IRA accounts
4) Deferred Compensation, 401 (k) accounts and similar retirement savings accounts
5) Cash value of life insurance poIicies
6) Cash value of armuities, if any
HADOC~MR ProgramkSunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev BMR A_m’nat Summary.doc
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 20 of 24
7) Value ofa business owned
8) Im, estmems in gold, coins, orig-inal art, diamonds, ffvalue of such assets exceeds
etc.
Table 4, cont.
9) EquiuT in all real property owned, including a current or former persona! residence
!0) Expected distribution as a beneficiary of an estate or trust
1 !) Automobiles, other than .one auto per household for personal use
12) Other assets, no~ listed
13) Persona! propervy such as household goods, furniture, clothing and personal items
including one automobile for personal use, and reasonable amounts of china, crysta!,
silver pieces and ~.oll,~,.nbLs is excluded from assets SuDjecL tO the asset iimits.
H:’d3OCkBMR Pro_m-amkSunrise Final 4-6-04 Rev B]vIR A_m-rnt Summary.doe
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 21 of 24
[City intends to have these proposed asset limits reviewed by its consultants for the BMR
Update Study]
Table 5
Maximum Asset Limits for BMR Applicants & Residents for 2004
Income Limit
Group
Very. Low Income
(50%
Lower, Low Income
(60% AMI)
Higher, Low Income
(80% ~)
2004 Maximum
1-Person Annual
Income
$36,950
Maximum Asset
LimitFactor
$59,100
[
4
I $240,000
$370,000
$44,300 $350.000
1. Asset limits are rounded to the nearest $10,000
2. The same asset limits apply to 2-person households
3. Based on the FebruazT 2004 median income for Santa Clara County
H:kDOCkBMTK Prograrn~umise Final 4-6-1M Re~’ BMK Agrmt Summary.doe
Revised:April 6, 2004
Page 23 of 24
Table 7
Base BM_R Rent (the Rent Portion of Maximum Monthly Charges)
As of April 2004
Income Group Category of
the BM_R Resident
Lower, Low Lnc~me
(60%
Amount of Maximum
Monthly Charges
Allocated to Housing /
Rent
$692
$831
Explanation
i"SRO’" rent affordable tO a
single person at 50% of AM1
"SRO" rent affordable to a
single person at 60% of AMI
Higher, Low Income
(80% AM )$1,478
Studio rent ~ffordableto a
single person at 80% of AMI
Based on the February 2004 median income for Santa Clara Countw
Note: SRO means skngle room occupancy and is generally a unit of less than 400 square
feet. The affordable rent for an SRO unit is considered by HUD standards to be 75% of the
studio rent at the same income level. Affordability is defined as 30% of the maximum
income for the AMI catego~% divided by 12 to get maximum affordable monthly housing
cost.
H:kDOC~BMR Program~Sunrise Final 4-6-1M Rex’ BIvlR Agrmt Summary.doe
V
V
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Attachment D
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
April 19, 2004
Rush Reich, City of Palo Alto
Dan Zemanek, Sunrise Assisted Living
Chris Gray, Fehr & Peers
Updated information regarding Sunrise Trip Generation and Sunrise Trip
Distribution
This memorandum provides updated information regarding the anticipated trip distribution and trip
generation for the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living in Palo Alto.
TRIP GENERATION
In response to comments received by the City of Palo Alto and public comments made at the April 14th
Planning Commission Meeting, Fehr & Peers has revised the project trip generation estimates based on
the application of Travel Demand Management (TDM) factors developed by the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA). These revisions include:
Excluding the 3% reduction for proximity to the Caltrain Station since the project location is more
than 2,000 feet from the Caltrain Station, based on measurements made by the City of Palo Alto.
Modifying the use of a 5% reduction based on a TDM program, which includes the provision of
transit passes to employees of the site. According to information provided by the VTA, this
reduction only applies to employee trips. Since approximately 1/3 of the trips accessing the site
during the day will be visitors or deliveries, Fehr & Peers has estimated that a more appropriate
reduction would be to reduce the project’s trip generation by 3% instead of the full 5% reduction.
Based on these considerations, the daily project trip generation is estimated to be 302 daily trips, instead
of 311 daily trips. This trip generation estimate is based on survey data collected by Fehr & Peers at
similar facilities in Northern California..
Additionally, Fehr & Peers compared the daily trip generation estimates for the project against other
available sources. The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (7th
Edition) provides a daily rate for the trip generation for assisted living facilities, which is based on national
studies of similar facilities. This rate was estimated to be 2.66 trips per bed per day. If this rate is applied
to the anticipated number of beds, the daily trip generation for the project would be 258 daily trips. It can
be concluded that the trip generation estimates for this facility used in the analysis are actually higher
than national data and are therefore a conservative estimate of the number of trips produced by the
project.
3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd., #301 La!ayette, CA 94549 (925) 284-3200 Fax (925) 284-2691
www.fehrandpeers.corn
Russ Reich, etc
April 19, 2003
Page 2 FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Based on comments received at the Planning Commission meeting, Fehr & Peers revisited the trip
distribution for the project. The purpose of this review was two-fold. First, Fehr & Peers reevaluated
whether the anticipated routes seemed reasonable, based on our experience, our knowledge of the
transportation system in Palo Alto, comments received from Planning Commissioners, and comments
made at the Public Hearing for the project. Second, Fehr & Peers evaluated whether changes in the
assumed routing would cause the project’s trips on the segment of Sheridan Avenue north of the project
to increase by greater than 25%, thereby causing the project to create a significant impact on Sheridan
Avenue.
Access/Egress Routes
The final traffic impact analysis for this project, completed in January 2004, assumed that a variety of
routes would be used to access the. project. Given that this project is likely to draw workers and visitors
from various locations throughout the Bay Area, a variety of routes were identified as likely to be utilized
by traffic traveling to and from the site. Major roadways used to access this project include El Camino
Real, US 101, 1-280, and Page Mill Expressway. Our review indicated that many of the routes seemed
reasonable; however, several routes were identified as subject to revision or modification. These routes
included:
The original analysis assumed that traffic from the south (US 101) would exit US 101 at
Charleston Road and travel up El Camino Real rather than use Page Mill Expressway
The analysis also assumed that all traffic traveling south on Page Mill Expressway towards the
project would turn only onto Birch and access the project using Sheridan Avenue (north of the
project) rather than turning onto El Camino Real and accessing the project from El Camino Real
The analysis further assumed that vehicles exiting the project to the east and south would turn
right out of the project and go north on Ash Street and then turn left at the traffic signal located at
El Camino Real/California Avenue
The analysis assumed that traffic exiting the site and wishing to go east on El Camino Real would
not make a u-turn at California Avenue. These trips were routed down Sheridan Avenue to Ash
Street to California Avenue. The original analysis assumed that 100 percent of the trips exiting
the project to go east on El Camino Real would route along Sheridan Avenue to Ash Street to
California Avenue
The analysis also assumed that traffic traveling down El Camino Real, such as those people
coming from Menlo Park, would turn onto California Avenue and travel down Ash Street to
Access Sheridan Avenue. One other potential route for these drivers would be to travel down El
Camino and make a u-turn at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway. The original analysis
assumed that 100 percent of these trips would use California Avenue and Ash Street to access
the project
Russ Reich, etc
April 19, 2003
Page 3 FEHR & PI~ERS
TRANSPORTATION ZONSUL3ANTS
Changes in the Project Access/Egress Routes
Fehr & Peers conducted an analysis of what would be the impact of changes in the project access routes.
Based on the routes documented in the Fehr & Peers January 2004 traffic impact analysis, traffic from the
project did not cause the daily traffic volumes on Sheridan Avenue to increase by more than 25%. This
previous analysis concluded that 61.5% of the project traffic would utilize Sheridan Avenue. This analysis
focused on whether changes in these assumed routes would cause additional traffic from the project to
use Sheridan Avenue to increase by 25% or more. An increase of 25% or more would be indicative of a
significant impact using City of Palo Alto Significance Thresholds.
This analysis concluded the following:
1.Changing the access routes based on Item #1 (routing traffic to the project from the south
using US 101 and Page Mill Expressway), while making no other changes, would route
additional project trips onto Sheridan Avenue, thereby increasing the daily volumes by more
than 25%, which would exceed the City’s thresholds. This analysis assumes that 100% of
the trips previously assumed to use Charleston Avenue will use Page Mill Expressway
instead.
2.However, assuming that one-half of the project trips traveling south on Page Mill Expressway
would make a right turn at El Camino Real rather than diverting before El Camino Real (such
as at Birch Street), would decrease the project trips on Sheridan Avenue. As stated
previously, the analysis originally assumed that all of the project trips would divert onto
Sheridan Avenue prior to reaching the El Camino Real/Page Mill intersection.
3.Traffic using this route was rerouted from Sheridan Avenue to Birch down to Page Mill
Expressway. There is no change in the amount of project traffic on Sheridan Avenue since
these trips were assumed to use Sheridan Avenue north of project.
4. Assuming that one-half of trips exiting the site and wishing to go east on El Camino Real
would make a u-turn at the El Camino Real/California Avenue intersection would reduce the
number of project trips on Sheridan Avenue.
5.Assuming that one-half of the vehicles from west of the project on El Camino entering the site
would make a u-turn at El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway.
Table 1 reports the anticipated percentage of project trips that might utilize Sheridan Avenue to the north
of the project site. This table reports the overall percentage of project trips using Sheridan Avenue, the
anticipated increase in daily volumes on Sheridan Avenue, and the anticipated percentage increase in
daily trips using Sheridan Avenue. Values are presented for various combinations of changes in the
project routes. As shown in this table, changing the project routing will in most cases decrease the
¯ number of trips associated with Sunrise using Sheridan Avenue.
Russ Reich, etc
April 19, 2003
Page 4 FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPOR’IATION CONSULTANTS
#1
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC ON SHERIDAN
Changes to Project Routes Percent of Project
#2 #3 #4 #5
Trips on Sheridan
Avenue
69%
60%
6O%
58%
54%
Project Trips
on Sheridan
Avenue
208
182
182
176
161
Percent Increase
in Daily Traffic
on Sheridan
27%
23%
23%
22%
21%
Notes: Project traffic estimated to be 302 daily trips. Existing traffic count on Sheridan Avenue is 783 daily vehicles, based
on count collected by Fehr & Peers in December 2002.
Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2004
Only in one case, changing the project trip routing would cause the additional traffic from the project
cause the daily volumes on Sheridan to increase to a level indicating a significant impact. This case
includes the following assumptions:
¯All traffic accessing the project site using Page Mill Expressway would divert from Page Mill
Expressway to Sheridan (using Birch) rather than turn right at the El Camino Real/Page Mill
Expressway intersection
¯No vehicles exiting the project make a u-turn at the intersection of El Camino Real/California
Avenue
¯No vehicles entering the site, such as those traveling eastbound on El Camino Reai, would
access the project by making a u-turn at the El Camino Real/Page Mill Expressway intersection
Given that it would be unlikely that all of these conditions would occur, it can be concluded that the traffic
generated by the project would not cause the daily volumes on Sheridan Avenue to increase by more
than 25%. Since this level of increase is unlikely, it can be concluded that the project will not generate a
significant impact on Sheridan Avenue.
Russ Reich, etc
April 19, 2003
Page 5 FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSUL]ANTS
CONCLUSION
This review of the project trip generation and trip distribution concluded the following:
¯Fehr & Peers estimated the project’s trip generation using survey data collected at three Northern
California Sunrise facilities. Since the traffic study was completed, new published data was made
available regarding the trip generation at assisted living facilities throughout the United States.
This data is published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (7th Edition).
Applying this national data would reduce the project trip generation by approximately 20 percent.
It can be concluded that the trip generation estimates for this facility used in the analysis are
actually higher than national data and are therefore a conservative estimate of the number of trips
produced by the project.
¯The project trip distribution appears to be generally reasonable. However, several of the routes
provided in the January 2004 report prepared by Fehr & Peers may not be consistent with the
experience of Palo Alto residents and City Staff. A review of potential changes to these routes
indicates that many suggested changes actually decrease the number of project trips using
Sheridan Avenue.
A significant impact on Sheridan Avenue only occurs under a worst-case scenario, as identified
above. A key feature of this worst-case scenario would be the assumption that 100 percent of
vehicles accessing the project from the north would divert from Page Mill Expressway onto
Sheridan Avenue rather than turning at the intersection of El Camino Real / Page Mill
Expressway. Another aspect of this scenario is that no u-turns are made by project traffic at the
intersections of El Camino Real / Page Mill Expressway or El Camino Real / California Avenue.
Attachment E
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
RUSS REICH
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
April 14, 2004
2701 EL CAMINO REAL [03-PC’02, 03-EIA-15, 03-ARB-05]:
REQUEST BY SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT INC. TO REZONE
A ONE ACRE PARCEL FROM C-N A~ND tLM-40 TO
PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE AN 81-UNIT
SENIOR ASSISTED LMNG FACILITY.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Community and environmental
document by approving the draft Planned Community Ordinance and exhibits
(Attachment A), The draft Ordinance describes the permitted uses and site development
regulations, and includes both Findings for Approval and a certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
BACKGROUND
On September 10 and November 12, 2003, the Commission reviewed preliminary project
plans and provided comments regarding the project’s conformance with objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, and E1 Camino Guidelines. At the second
hearing, the Commission reviewed information provided by staff and the applicant to
address their concerns. These included design alternatives, a sustainability checkJist, a
tree removal and preservation proposal, and information regarding the: (1) availability of
assisted living facilities, (2) Valley Transportation Authority site, (3) operational impacts,
(4) potential impacts on traffic, parking and circulation, (5) estimated park impact fees
and adequacy of on-site open space. The Commission acted favorably on the project,
City of Palo Alto Page 1
forwarding the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for design review. The
Commission gave positive direction regarding one of three alternative desig-ns and the
project was redesig-ned to address this alternative (#4), which involved a substantial
change in the building footprint to shift a greater portion of the building mass toward E1
Camino Real and away from the adjacent Silverwood building and locate the auto court at
the center of the building on Sheridan. The garage ramp was relocated to provide access
from the auto court farther from the Silverwood building in response to neighbor
concerns.
The most significant changes to the plan recommended for approval by the ARB were (1)
shifting the fire access driveway to Sheridan from E1 Camino Real, (2) modifying the
style and proposed materials for the building, and (3) expanding the below grade parking
garage to accommodate eight additional vehicles.
The ARB reviewed preliminary plans at a public hearing on December 18, 2003. The
formal proposal was then reviewed by the ARB on February 5 and March 4, 2004, when
the ARB recommended approval of the revised project to City Council with a 2-1-0-2
vote. Two members were absent from the March 4, 2004 meeting and one member was
opposed primarily due to the number and type of exterior materials proposed for the
building. To meet the conditions of the ARB recomme.ndation, specific architectural
details were presented to and approved by the ARB on consent calendar on April 1, 2004.
Brief Proiect Description
The project is a four-story 86,400 square foot (including underground garage) senior
assisted living facility. The facility would provide 81 living units with the capacity for a
total of 97 residents, including those suffering from Dementia, with Below Market Rate
(BMR) housing and services for 12 persons, and space available for periodic use by
Avenidas Senior Center. The below-grade garage ramp would be accessed via the auto
court, which is accessed from Sheridan Avenue. The 44 garage parking spaces are
proposed primarily for employee and visitor parking, and a loading zone is proposed on
E1 Camino Real. Also proposed is a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program, 15 street trees plus $20,000 for median improvements on E1 Camino Real, and
public amenity areas on two corners that would be open to the public, providing seating
and landscaping. The applicant has committed to including public art in the project, and
will meet with the Public Arts Commission to discuss various proposals.
DISCUSSION
Public Benefits
The public benefits associated with the proposed project are described in the attached
Planned Community Ordinance (Attachment A). One of the most significant public
benefits proposed for this project is the reduced rate for the service package that would be
City of Palo Alto Page 2
provided for the 12 persons in the BMR program. This is the first time {n Palo Alto that
an assisted living facility will provide reduced rates for the service package in addition to
the reduced rents for residents.
Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement
Board and care at below market rates would be provided for 12 residents of the home.
This is a proposal that meets the BMR requirement of the Comprehensive Plan and is the
first BMR proposal in Palo Alto to include a service component. The inclusion of the
services in the BMR package allows seniors at lower income levels the ability to afford
the BMR slots. An agreement letter has been prepared regarding the provision of below
market rate units and services (Attachment C).
Traffic, Parking and Circulation
As noted in the environmental document, the project will not result in a significant traffic
impact. The previous Commission report also noted the following items: (i) any member
of the public can formally request a staff evaluation of the need for a stop sign at the
comer of Ash and Sheridan, (2) access to the parking facilities should be from Sheridan
rather than from E1 Camino Real, (3) E1 Camino is the appropriate location for the
loading zone, (4) the project achieves more on-street parking on Sheridan due to the
removal of one curb-cut, and (5) a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
will be implemented for the proposed project.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The processing of the PC development application is on a cost/recovery basis and staff
time is charged to the applicant. The proposed project, with 60 assisted living units
(below 900 square feet in size) and 15,016 square feet of commercial square footage on
the dementia floor would result in approximately $280,438.00 in Development Impact
Fees. The breakdown of the fees is as follows: Parks, $217,048.00; Community Centers,
$45,870.00; Libraries, $17,520.00. Property taxes for the property are currently 25,000
dollars. With the completion of the Sunrise project it is estimated that property taxes
would increase to 200,000 dollars.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as explained in the
Planning Commission report dated November 12, 2003 and as indicated in the attached
draft PC ordinance. The project as redesigned meets the goals, objectives and policies of
the E1 Camino Real Guidelines, as the new design includes a strong comer element.
TIMELINE
Action:
Application submitted
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting (initial)
Date:
January 17, 2003
September 10, 2003
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting (initial) (cont.)
ARB Meeting (informational)
ARB Meeting (formal review)
ARB Meeting (formal review)
ARB Meeting (consent review)
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting (final)
City Council
November 12, 2003
December 18, 2003
February 5, 2004
March 4, 2004
April 1, 2004
April 14, 2004
May 3, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Assessment has been completed for the project. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended. The document was circulated on February 4, 2004 for a 20-
day comment period. No formal written comments were received prior to the expiration
of the comment period on February 24, 2004.
A member of the public submitted comments (Attachment D) on March 4, 2004, March
16, 2004, and April 7, 2004 and spoke to the Commission and ARB at their hearings.
Staff has reviewed these comments and believes that the Mitigated negative Declaration
adequately addresses these concerns.
Mitigation measures are primarily related to soil and groundwater contamination on site.
Lead must be removed from a small shallow area on site and a Soil Management Plan has
been provided as mitigation for this problem. It is not anticipated that dewatering of the
site will be necessary but a Dewatering Plan has been provided as mitigation should
dewatering be necessary. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, a
mitigation measure intended to reduce the number of potential vehicle trips to and from
the project site, requires Sunrise to offer and provide transit passes to any employee.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Planned Community Ordinance with exhibits: (A) Zone map; (B) "
Conditions of Approval (C) Development Schedule
Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BMR agreement
Public Comments dated March 4, 2004 and March 16, 2004
ARB meeting minutes (2/5/04, 3/4/04, 4/1/04) (Commission packet only)
Commission meeting minutes (11/12/03) (Commission packet only)
Project Plans and applicant materials (Commission packet only)
Note:Previous staff reports and minutes for this project are available for review in the
public file or on the city’s web site.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
COURTESY COPIES:
Daniel F. Zemanek
Joe A Villareal
Bill Hahn
Jim Baer
Angelica Volterra
James Yee
Robert Cutler
Troy Underwood
Herb Borock
William Hadaya
Viviana Tul
Joy Ogawa
Clarice A_me
Jerry Mdevitt
Dale Reed
Yeuen Kim
Shannon McEntee
Sanjeet Thadani
Helena Roeber and Shahriar Rabii
DeAnn Underwood
Roger Smith
Prepared by: Russ Reich, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Department!Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment F
Reich, Russ
From:
Sent:
To:
Angelica Volterra [avolterra@batnet.com]
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:42 AM
Reich, Russ
French, Amy; Emslie, Steve
Subject: Proposed Sunrise Facility
Dear Russ:
I am writing about several matters in connection with the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living Facility at 2701 El
Camino:
1..The proposed p.roject would, I belieye, create s_i.gnificant cumulative traffic impacts. I am submitting
as an attachment an additional document written in response to the "Mitigated Negative
Declaration" ("MND") for the project. This document addresses the issue of the project’s significant
cumulative traffic impacts which 1 believe the MND and the Traffic Impact Analysis have inadequately
analyzed and disclosed, i respectfully request that you add this letter and the attached document to the
documents dated March 3, 2004 that I previously submitted in response to the MND.
2. As 1 mentioned in my letter of March 3rd, I understood from the ARB Staff Report dated March 4, 2004, that
no other formal written comments had been received in response to the MND. Since my comments have
apparently been the only formal comments submitted, and because the proposed p.r__oject would create
significant traffic imp, ! request that the Planning Division provide a formal response to my
comments. I also respectfully request that the Planning Division include a response to the comments that
are included in this transmission.
_3.Also, if a response to comments is provided, I was wondering when it will be available for review by
members of the public. I would be very grateful to have a copy as soon as possible after its completion.
4.I was also wondering whether the date of the next hearing of this project has been decided and what that
date will be.
Thank you veBf much,,Pu~, ~_. ,~ wil! ~-~--~--,~,-=’~’~r’=~’i=÷’= hearing from you about these matters.
Sincerely,
Angelica Volterra
~I, 812004
Sunrise Project: 2701 E1 Camino Rea!
These comments address issues and concerns rela~ed to the proposed Sunrise Assisted
Living Faciliry and Planned Community development at 2701 E1 Camino Real and the
environmen~ review of the project.
X~,rII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
The proposed Su~se development would create si~fificant cumulative traffic impacts
that the Traffic Impact A_nalysis and the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("lv~qD") have
failed to consider.
The "Environmemal ChecMist Form" ("ECF") of the 1VLNrD states under question "b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (’Cumulatively considerable’means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects q/probable future projects) ?" that the
project would have "Less Than Significant Impact." The checMist cites as "Source
References" for this item the"’Project Planner’ ~knowledge of the site," the "Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010," and the "Project Plans."
The "Explanation for ChecNist Responses," states that "the project will not create
considerable, cumulative impacts when viewed in connection with past., current and
probable furore projects, because (J) it is an infill development of previousty w’ban
developed land and is located in an area that is largely developed, and (2) there are no
currently approvedprojects in the Cio: of l~alo Alto in the vicinity of the project site."
The California Environmental Quality Act Guideline 15 ! 30 "Discussion of Cumulative
Impacts" states:
"The following elements are necessaz3; to an adequate discussion of sig-nificant
cumulative impacts:
(J) Either.
(.4) A list qf past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts, including, if necessar3; those projects outside the contT’ol of the agency: or
(7?,) A summao, of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, o,," in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified,
which described or evaiuazed regional or areca~,ide conditions cont~’ibuting to the
cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available
to the public at a location specified by the lead agency."
However, the MND fails to consider the "Housing Sites Inventory" included in the "Palo
.~to Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4: Housing Element" on pages t 6 and 17. This
"Housing Sites Invemory" lists a number of important futm-e projects that will impact
Sheridan A_venue and other local intersections and tha~ have not been Nven any
consideration in the cumulative impacts analysis.
Sites include the following:
1. E. side Sheridan Ave. bem’een SPRR and Park Blvd.: Site no. 8-11;
Underufilized industrial bldgs. Portion of Page Mill Rd. r.o.w.;
Site Size in Acres: 3.92;
Minimum Dwe!linz Unit Yield: 120
2. 2650 Birch St. at Sheridan Ave.: Site no. 8-06;
2 vacant lots and 4 houses;
Site Size in Acres: 0.57;
Minimum Dwellinz Unit Yield: 15
3. 2755 E1 Camino Real; Site no. 8-09(5);
VTA Park & Ride Lot;
Site Size in Acres: 0,48;
Minimum Dwel!inK Unit Yield: 15
Ver~, importantly, the Housing Sites Inventory states that "P,~w state legislation
(AB2292) requires compensating changes in the inventom, if fewer units are oermitted
on a site. A larger number of units ram; be atmroved on any site when consistent with
the Comtwehensive Plan. zoning and state law." (Emphases added.)
The ~’s discussion of cumulative imnacts is inadeouate: it fails to consider the
cumulative traffic imt~acts of the develonment of these sites. All of the development
projects at the above-mentioned sites w-ill generate traffic that ~dll use Sheridan Avenue,
including Sheridan Avenue in the project vicinity, as an important ~avel route. Thus,
the prooosed Sunrise project would have si_~-nificant cumulative imnacts alon~
Sheridan. These impacts must be disclosed and analyzed in connection ~dth the
environmental review of this proj oct.
Respectfully submitted,
_Angelica Volterra
March 3, 2004
RECEIVED
~ent of Planning &
Cu~.nunity =_rlviror~rnent
Russ Reich
Associate Planner
Planning Division
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Russ:
Attached please fmd documents thin address issues and concerns related to the proposed
Sunrise Assisted Living Facili~, at 2701 E1 Camino. These documents include comments
written in response to the "Mitigated Negative Declaration" for the project.
I understand from the Architectural Review Board Staff Report dated March 4, 2004 that
no other formal written comments have been received in response to the "Mitigated
Negative Declaration." Based on my review of this document and the "Transportation
Impact Analysis," I believe that the proposed project would result in si_~mificant impacts
related to traffic, impacts that are not adequately analyzed and disclosed in these
documents.
I would therefore be very ~ateful if the Planning Division would consider providing a
forma! response to my comments.
Thank you very much.
Respectf~y submitted,
., ,~-’i .~
~amgelica Volterra
Sunrise Project: 2701 El Camino Real
Introduction
My comments address issues and concerns related to the proposed Sunrise Assisted
Living Faciliw and Planned Community development at 2701 Et Camino.
The proposed Sunrise development would create sigNficant impacts ~4th respect to
traffic and parking, impacts which are inadequately re~iewed and disclosed in the "Final
Report: Transportation Impact Analysis for Sunrise Assisted Living Eacili~. ,, Palo Alto,
CaliforvTia" ("TLA") dated January, 2004 prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation
Consultants and the "City of 29alo Alto: California Environmental QualiO,, Act., Mitigated
Negative Declaration" ("I~.rD’’) dated 2/4/04.
The purpose of the TIA is to provide expert tmoMedge and factua! information regarding
traffic and travel conditions related to the proposed development project and "to evaluate
the prqject’s potential impacts on the surrounding transportation @,stem" (TL% page i).
The MNrD relies on this TIA for the conclusions that it reports. Members of the public
and decision-makers in mm rely on the en’~dronmental document punished by the City
and required by CEQI& for a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of a
project such as this. (Most members of the punic and decision-makers do not review the
supporting source reference documents cited in the MND, includ~g the Traffic Impact
Analysis.)
I have reviewed various versions of the Sunrise Traffic Impact Analysis that have been
submitted by the traffic consultant. I have submitted written comments in response to
traffic-related documents that I have reviewed. I have attended meetings at which I have
spoken regarding traffic concerns. And I have read the consultant’s responses to
comments that I have made. The problems (including errors and inaccuracies) I have
discovered in connection with traffc-re~ated documents have been troubling, as these
problems affect the quali~, and reliabili~’ of information that is reported.
As I previously related in discussions with Staff and documented in my letter to the
Planning and Transportation Commission dated November 6, 2003, a consultant from
Fehr and Peers inaccurately reported and misrepresented comments that I made that were
recorded in verbatim minutes from the September 10, 2003 Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting, and then responded to the alleged comments as if responding to
actual commenzs. For me, these misrepresentations of my remarks and the manner of
response cast a shadow over the entire Fehr and Peers Report that I was commenting on
at the time and called into further question for me the accuracy of the Report.
Unforamately, as I have followed this proj eat and reviewed the various versions of the
TLA’s that have been submitted, I have developed the impression that the TiA’s have not
provided thorough and accurate analyses and disclosure of the project’s potential
environmental impacts which is, I believe, the intent of CEQA.
One example: in earlier versions of the TL~_. information re_~ardin__, specific travel routes
was not included. This information was requested and subsequently, provided, and, as
discussed in detail below, as a result: a number of inaccuracies -adth important
implications were discovered. Such inaccuracies are disturbing. Trip routes at this
particular location are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated. The?, are also fairly
readily substantiated. However, other dam and information presented in the ~ra~c stud?,
are more difficult for reviewers to verifs, and evaluate.
In the current T/k, the inaccuracies, the lack of substantial evidence to justifs’
conclusions reported, the omission of important data, the lack of specificity regarding
methodoloNes used, ali result in a document that I believe (based on the information
provided) is inadequate. And because the TIA is inadequate, the MND is inadequate. And
because the MND is inadequate, decision-makers and members of the public are deprived
of information the?’ need in order to adequately assess the project’s likely environmental
impacts.
A. Traffic: Circulation-
.Mthough the project address is 2701 E1 Camino Real, the project’s main entrance and
driveway are on Sheridan Avenue, a narrow- local street already dense with development.
Sheridan Avenue will sustain significant impacts as a result of the proposed
development, impacts ~;nich the TIA and the MDN fail to disclose.
1. The TL4, relies on data sources that provide inaccurate information.
The TIA states (Appendix D, "Trip Generation Analysis," page 2) that the "traffic
counts combined with the sig-n-in sheets, represented the major source of the data"
that was used to calculate trip generation rates. However, during my visit to one of
the three facilities studied, I noted that only one of the four visitors who entered the
building while I was observing the entrance, signed the si_.~m-in log. The si_ma-in logs
which are used to calculate the trip generation rates the TIA usesto estimate project
~zafflc in fact underestimate the actual activity into and out of the sites. Thus, these
trip generation rates likely underestimate the amount of actual traffic that will be
generated by the proposed project.
[The TL~_ notes (Appendix C page 3, and Appendix D page 2) that a "contingency
factor" was applied "to account for residents or guests that failed to sig-n in or out."
However, it fails to provide details regarding this factor and justification for the
factor used, thus depriving reviewers of information that is necessary, to assess the
adequacy of the methodoloN,. Such disclosure I believe is necessary, particularly in
view of other inaccuracies that were discovered when additional informatio~ for
example trip routing information, was provided as discussed above and below.]
2. Trip routing data presented in the TL& is inaccurate.
2
Assertions made about "all inbound traffic" and "all outbound traffic" in connection
with at least 8 of the 16 trip distribution routes discussed in the TL~ prepared by Fehr
and Peers are incorrect based on my experience and the experience of residents of the
adjacent Sitverwood condominium complex. This was corroborated through a
questionnaire that was submitted to residents of Silverwood regarding 8 of the 16
routes. Of 10 responses received from Silverwood residents, only one respondent’s
answers corresponded with routes mentioned in the TLk, and then only for the two
routes noted in question # 2 and question #6. In all other responses received, the
routes used by Silverwood residents differed from those routes to which the TIA
assi~m~s "all" traffic. (See attachment entitled "Questionnaire Regarding Trip Routes
To and From Silverwood Condominiums, 435 Sheridan Avenue.")
This provides substantial evidence that a si~cant number of the claims made in the
TIA relating to nip routes are incorrect.
One case in particular provides a troubling example of the TIA’s incorrect assertions
and the important implications. The TIA assigns "all inbound traffic" traveling north
on US 101 to the following route: exit 101 at San Antonio Road, turn right onto
Charleston Road. turn right onto E1 Camino, right onto Sheridan, and right into the
project. With the inclusion of this inc.orrect nip route assi~ment, the TL~’s trip
generation calculation for the proposed project comes in under the 25% threshold of
si~maificance that the City" is using to determine whether the increase in project traffic
will result in a si_maificaut impact on Sheridan. Using correct trip route information
for this route (even using the inaccurate trip generation rates calculated and used in
the TIA, see below), when new trip generation figures are calculated, the new
calculations show that the project will have a significant impact on Sheridan.
3.The TLA. pro~ddes no substantial evidence to support the pro)ect trip
distribution data it presents.
The TLa~ states (page 14 and Appendix D, page 2) that the project trips "are assumed
to be evenly distributed between areas to the north and south q~Palo Alto (50percent
to the north, 50percent ~o the south)." However, there is no substantial evidence
presented that supports this assumption. Moreover, this statement appears to be a
departure from the claims made in both the prior "Drmff Report TLa_ for Sunrise
Assisted Living Facili~,, Palo Alto, California" dated January, 2003 and the prior
"Final Report: Transportation Impact Analysis for Sunrise Assisted Living Facili~,,
Palo Alto, California" dated September, 2003, which stated that "the trip distribution
pattern qf the proposed development was estimated based on exist#N travel patterns
in the vicinity qf the site and the relative locations qf complementar3, land uses in the
area." The 50-50 distribution of traffic to the north and to the south described in the
current version of the "Final TIA" suggests an arbitrary distribution and does not
appear to be based on factual information or substantial evidence.
Furthermore, the TLA does not provide substantial evidence to justin’ ks assignment
of project traffic to the roadways (i.e., US 101, US 280, E1 Camino, Middlefield,
Foothill Expressway) used to access the pr~ect site (see pages 14-15 and Appendix
D page 2). These nip distribution assumptions appear to be estimates or best g~esses,
and the), are used to calculate important dam (the number of trips generated by the
project) which are used to gauge environmental impacts.
4. The project wil! result in sig~nifieant Waffle impacts on Sheridan Avenue.
Aflthough the project address is 2701 E1 Camino, the major traffic impacts will occur
along Sheridan Avenue, the location of the facility’s main entrance and drivew~, and
the entrance to the project’s under~ound parking facility. The proposed project will
substantially increase traffic on Sheridan and will create si_maificant impacts on this
narrow local street. The TIA uses inaccurate assumptions and inaccurate dam to
arrive at its conclusion that "traffic from the proposed prqiect would increase traffic
on Sheridan Avenue, west of Ash by 22 percent"’ (page 2).
a. As discussed above, assertions made about "all inbound traffic" and "all outbound
traffic" in connection with at least 8 of the 16 trip distribution tomes discussed in the
TL& are incorrect. One example is the inbound traffic from northbound US 101" the
correct routing would in fact have traffic traveling inbound on Sheridan west of Ash.
The resulting corrected calculations demonstrate that project traffc would cause an
increase in existing daily volume of at least 25% on Sheridan west of the project,
which is a si~mlificant impact based on the Standards of Si_maificance used in this TIA.
T -aking into consideration other issues reposed in my document,, project traffic would
cross the threshold to a noticeable de~ee, and would produce a significant impact.
b. The TIA states (Appendix D page 4) that the calculation of Sheridan traffic
impacts "is based on the prq~ect distribution, as detailed in the traffic studies
submitted to the Cio~ qfPa!o Alto. An), changes to the project distribution could
cause the number qf trips to increase or decrease on Sheridm7 Avenue, thereby
resulting in a sig-nificant trajfic impact." As discussed above, the project trip
distribution data presented in the TIA appears to be arbitrary data and does not appear
to be based on substantial evidence.
c. TDM Issues: There is no =~antee that employees at the proposed Sunrise facility
would utilize the TDM measure included for the purpose of reducing the amount of
vehicular traffic accessing and parking at and near the facilib, in numbers sufficient
to substantially reduce the sigmificant traffic impacts of the proposed prqiect.
The Iv~rD states (page 24) that the condusion regarding the increase in project traffic
"is based on trip generation analysis that assumes a 5percent trip reduction factor
because the project is prm,iding subsidized trcmsit passes for all employees who wish
one. This reduction is permitted by the Santa Clara Congestion Management Agenw
(tTA) based on its research and is embodied in the VTA’s Transportation Imvact
Anah,sis Guidelines. Moo’ 7.. 7998, Table 4."
4
However, Table 4 of the VTA’s "Guidelines" acmalb7 states that an "Efifecti,ae TD3~’
pro~am wil! be allowed a "Maximum 2rip Reduction" of"uz~ t_.__~o 5%" if"
Jncentives" are provided (emphases added).
Attachment B of the ARB Staff Report dated March 4, 2004 states that "the
TDM_PZan shall be implemented The facility operator s]iall pro~,ide transit
passes (bus and/or rail) to a~, employee that requests it." However, the
applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that this TDM
measure will in fact be "ejSfective" at this project site/location.
Furthermore, there is no mention of a requirement of the applicant to promote
public transit to the employees at the site, as the condition quoted above states
that transit passes will be provided "to any employee that requests it, "’ which
is a ve~, passive approach to the issue.
o The TIA assumes the full 5% reduction and applies this reduction to all of the
trips estimated to be _~nerated by the project. However, in fact,, trip
generation data comprises trips generated by visitors to the site and residents
of the site as well as the employees. The TIA and the ~ cannot credibly
apply this ful___!l trip reduction factor to all of the project trips Nven the fact that
it is highly unlikely that am, residents of and visitors to the faciliD..’ will utilize
public transit: residents of the facility will almost certainly not nor is it likely
that transit passes ,a4_ll conveniently be available an&/or consistently utilized
by visitors.
The TIA cannot correctly and reasonably apply the full trip reduction factor to
the trip generation figaxres merely because of the incorporation of this TDM
financial incentive as a condition of project approval. If the full 5% reduction
factor is not taken and the correct routes are utilized (even in the absence of
substantiated trip roadway distribution assumptions and correct trip
generation rates), then the project wot~Id cause an increase in existing daily
volume of greater than 25% on Sheridan west of the project, which is a
significant impact based on the Standards of Significance used in this TLA_.
However, even taking the full 5% reduction, the project would cause an
increase in existing daily volume of greater than 25% on Sheridan west of
the project, which is a si~cam impact based on the Standards of
Si~cance used in this TIA.
d. The trip generation rates, as discussed above, are based on inaccurate data sources
that underestimate actual activiD, into and out of the site mad a va.~mae "contingency
factor" that is not described and therefore cannot be assessed.
e. The M3xrD states (page 23) that "the increase of daily tra.~fic on Sheridan east of th~
project site ~a, ould be approximately 22 percent." However, this "22 %" that is cited is
based on both a 5% reduction factor for use of the TDM "financial incentives" and a
5
3% reduction for "proximiD’ to n-ansit." However, the MND does not mention this
additiona! 3% reduction that is combined with the 5% in the TIA to arrive at the 22
"percentage increase" in "daily trips on Sheridan" (see TL4., Appendix D, p~es 5-
6).
l_n its calculations with respect to this 3% reduction for "proximi~ to trai~sit," the TIA
assumes the f-ull 3% reduction and appiies this reduction to all of the trips estimated
to be generated by the project. However, in fact, trip generation data comprises trips
generated by visitors to the site and residents of the site as weL! as the employees. The
TIA (and the MNrD in the 22% statistic it cites) cannot credibly apply this full trip
reduction factor to all of the project trips ~ven the fact that it is highly unlikely that
residents of the facilio, ~411 utilize public transit. It is also not likely that visitors to
the facility wi11 use punic transit consistently or in sufficient numbers to significantly
affect trip generation figures.
Moreover, the applicant has not provided substantial evidence regarding the
percentage of employees at this site/location likely to use public transit in order to
enable the public and other reviewers of the I~N-D as well as decision-makers the
oppommity to evaluate the data and arrive at conclusions regarding this trip reduction
factor.
Therefore, the TIA cannot correctly and reasonably apply the full trip reduction factor
to the trip generation figures merely because of the project’s proximity to transit. If
the full 3% reduction factor is not taken and the correct routes are utilized (even in
the absence of substantiated trip roadway distribution assumptions), then the project
would cause an increase in e.~sring daily volume of greater than 25% on Sheridan
west of the project, which is a sJ#cant impact based on the Standards of
Significance used in this TIA.
However. even taking the full "o,the._,/o reduction, project would cause an increase in
existing daily volume of greater than 25% on Sheridan west of the proj ect, which is
a significant impact based on the Standards of Significance used ia this TIA.
f. One of the stated public benefits of the project is the proposed use of the facility for
events open to all seniors in the Palo Alto area and Sunrise’ offer that the facility
become a focal point for Palo Alto seniors. This would further exacerbate traffic
problems, congestion, and parking along Sheridan. The March 4, 2004 Staff Report
states that "Sunrise has proposed to work with Avenidas Senior Center and make
available meti~g space within the proposed Sunrise home and would schedule events
that would be open to all seniors in the .Palo Alto area. These events would entail the
use of shuttie vehicles to avoid any additional traffic impacts" (page 3). This
additional traffic is not accounted for in the trip and parking generation rates
cited in the TIA. Nor is it clear how events "open to all seniors in the PaIo Alto
area" would only "entail the use of shuttle vehicles to avoid any additional traffic
impacts" and not automobiles as well (page 3, March 4, 2004 Staff Report). The lack
of detail regarding this issue deprives members of the public and other reviewers of
6
important information that is n~-ssmD to determine the adequacy of the
environmental analysis.
4.The project fails to include more than the one TDM measure discussed
above.
This project is located on a transit-oriented site. However, the project apparently fails
to include and the Ci~, has apparently failed to require that the developer include
TDM measures other than the one discussed above.
The TIA (Appendix E "Transportation Demand Management Pro~am" page 4)
provides information regarding TDM measures including a "List of Potential TDM
Measures" for the project. Yet apparently, according to the March 4 ARB Staff
Report (Attachment B), the CiD’ is only requiring as a condition of approval that the
"TDM" Plan consist of the pro~dsion by the faciliD, operator of "transit passes (bus
and/or rail) to any emplo~vee that requests it." Why are other TDM Plan measures not
incIUded as a condition of approval for this project? It is unlikely that visitors and
residents will take public transit, so it is very important that there be an effective
TDM Pro~am. Furthermore, there is no mention of a requirement of the appficant to
promote public transit, as the condition quoted above states that transit passes will be
provided "to any employee that requests it, "which is a ve~, passive approach to the
issue.
B. Traffic: Parking
The proposed Sunrise development would create si~cant parking impacts on
Sheridan, a narrow local street already often parked to capaciD, weekdays during the day
as well as Sunday mornings, the latter because of activities involving the church located
on the comer of Sheridan and Ash. The TIA fails to provide adequate documentation
regarding the proposed Palo Alto Sunrise facili~’s par’king needs and impacts and reIies
on inaccurate and inadequate data sources to arrive at the conclusions that it reports.
Many of the visitors to the facility and probabb; staff members as well would
regularly use on-street parking along Sheridan. This would exacerbate par’king
demand and congestion along Sheridan, a street which is already heavily parked
with cars during important weekday and weekend periods.
The proposed Sunrise driveway located on Sheridan-would eliminate much-
needed parking along Sheridan further impacting and exacerbating the parking
situation. The proposed Sunrise facility would therefore reduce the amount of
street parking on the south side of the 400 block of Sheridan Avenue. In fact, at.
the present time, cars use the spaces at curb cuts along Sheridan for much-needed
parking because the curb cuts are not functioning as active driveways. I therefore
disagree with the November 12t~ Staff Report’s conclusion that ’~he proposed
project will actually provide more on street parking than previously existed at this
location" because "(t)he project has proposed to remove ~,o of the curb cuts on
Sheridan..." (page 7). See attachments "A" and "B" of my November 10, 2004
7
letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission for photo~aphs of cars
parked in front of curb cuts along Sheridan Avenue at the proposed Sunrise site;
r,.sp~.cn~ ,.t3, on Tuesday. November 4,photos taken at 10:17 a.m. and I:19 p.m.
2003.
3. Sheridan Avenue at the project site is heavily utilized for parking activities in
connection ~4th the California Avenu~ business disn-ict as well as residential and
other local businesses and local church activities. I have previously submitted
copies of photographs taken in the 400 block of Sheridan on Tuesday, November
4, 2003 around 10:20 a.m., 1:20 p.m., and 5:15 p.m. These photos document on-
sn-eet parking that is already filled to capaci~ at various times during the day in
the block where the proposed Sunrise project would be located, iChe addition of a
sigrLificant number of visitors and employees as well as delivery vehicles parking
along Sheridan in connection with the proposed Sunrise faciliD’ would creme
further parking and congestion impacts. (See also section entitled "Deliveries"
below.) The photos taken around 10:20 a.m. contradict Sunrise’s claim that
"Sheridan has few parked cars in the morning hours" (October 20, 2003
Memorandum.to Russ Reich). See _Attachments "A", ’~B", "C’, "D’, and "E" of
my November 10. _00z letter to the Planning and ~franspormtion Commission and
photographs submitted by me to the ArchitectnrM Review ]Board during its
February 5, 2004 meeting. (The spaces, seen in th~ photographs are at functioning
driveways, red-painted curbs, a fire hydrant, etc.)
4. One of the stated public benefits of the project would be the use of the faciliw for
events open ~o all seniors in the Palo Alto area and Sunrise’ offer that the faciliD,
become a focal point for Palo Alto seniors. ~v~is would further exacerbate traffic
problems, congestion, and parking along Sheridan. The March 4, 2004 Staff
Report states that "Sunrise has proposed ~o work with Avenida~ Senior Cen~er
and ma~ m,ailable metin~ space within the proposed Sunrise home and would
schedule events tha~ would be open to all ~eniors in the Palo Al~o ~ea. Z~ese
events would entail the use qf shuttle vehicles to avoid arO, additiona~ traffc
impacts" (page 3). This additional traffic is not aee~)tmted for in the trip and
parking generation rates cited in the TL4,. Nor is it clear how events "open to
all seniors in the Palo Alto area" would only "entailthe Use of shuttle vehicles to
avoid an), additional traffc impacts" and not automobiles as well (page 3, March
4, 2004 Staff Report). Also, as stated in the StaffReport, "Sunrise has proposed
to work with Avenidas" (emphasis added). The Staff Report further states that
"Ff’7~iIe not specified at this time, Sunrise will specify for council review the
number of d~,s per month and the times qf dco, that the space would be
available." The lack o£ detail regarding this issue deprives members ofthe public
and other reviewers of impo~-*~tnt information that is necessary to determine the
adequacy of the em, ironmental analysis.
5. The methodolo~, employed by Fehr and Peers to determine the parking
characteristics for the other Sunrise facilities upon which the proposed Palo Alto
facility’s parking demand is based is not clear and is not readily understandable.
Specific data used to calculate parkdng demand for the three study locations
(Sunn)-cale, San Marco, and Petaluma) are omitted in the TIA. It is therefore
impossible to adequately evaluate the TL4.’s methodolo~, and conclusions. The
methodolo~, appears to va~D, at the different sites, and information presented is
conflicting and colffusing. The methodolo~, used to determine parking demand
apparently relies on inadequate and inaccurate information and therefore likely
underes.timates parking impacts. The TIA relies on the follo~4ng information
obtained at the three facilities/sites to determine the parking rates that it then
applies to the proposed Palo Alto project:
a. "Sign-in logs, if available from the tra.~c data colleetion period"
(_Appendix C, page 3). However, as noted above, these underestimate
activiD, into and out of the sites. Also, there is inadequate information
provided to assess whether there was enough data available to accurately
determine parldng rates that the TIA reports~ Moreover, why does it say
"sign-in iogs, ff available"? Are sign-in logs not kept at all times and
accurate for all periods?
b. "Automatic drivew~, count data" (Appendix C, page 3). However, as also
noted in Appendix C, "automatic drivew~’ counts conducted at each xite
were found tO not produce verifiable data when compared to the manual
drivewm.., cozmts for the same period " (page !). Also, "while the
automatic drivewcty cozints were not accul"ate enough to provide weekday
or weekend peak parking accumulations., they provided some indication qf
activi~.’ in and out qf the parking facilities" (page 3).
c. "The actual parl~qng demm~ for each site" (Appendix C, page 3).
However, the "par~ demand" for each site is inaccurate and/or based
on inaccurate data as reflected in the fo!l~’~4ng statements:
i."77~e actual parking demand for each site, collected during the
weekda3, and weekend site visits, was compared to the activi~, qf
each site reflected in the si~-in logs, if available from the traffic
data collection period, al~d to the automatic driveway count data
collected on the same dco, as the parking survo;" (Appendix C
page 3). However, the sign-in logs, as discussed above,
underestimate the actual activi~; into and out of the facility. Also,
why were sigma-in logs not available for the traffic data collection
period if sign-in logs are kept at all times and are accurate?
Moreover, as also noted in Appendix C, "automatic driveway
counts conducted at each site were found to not produce verifiable
data when compared to the manual driveway counts for the same
period." (page 1). Therefore, the "actual parking demand for each
site" was compared to inaccurate and unreliable data.
ii."During the data collection period., it should be noted that
construction was occurring at the bank facility adjacent to the
PetaIuma facilig,. Vehicles related to bank construction activiO,
moo, iu~ve been par~d in the _Petaiuma Sunrise Assisted Living
facility parking lot and included in the parking lot occupanc),
count" (Appendix C page 3). Therefore data collected at this site is
iikely inaccurate.
iii. "The level qfon-streetparking demcout (at the Petaluma
site) could not be estimated f!’om the automatic counts collected as
staff are directed to park on the st~’eet and are not included in the
counts. Addit~’onally the amount of ~isitor overflow is un~own (at
~e Pe~a facility). However, the level qf s~eerpar~qng ac~vi
was es~mated based on sta~ng informatio~? as well as the visitor
and ~est si~-in logs" (Appen~x C p~e 10). ~ noted above, ~e
si~-~ logs ~dere~te ac~ acfivi~, ~to
faci~ties. ~erefore ~s ~o~afion is 1Nely inacc~me.
iv. "Based on the occupano~ of the parting lot
Pe~a site), visitor togs, and sta~ng levels, it is es~mated that
wee~,peakpar~qng dema~ occas.., with 38 spaces demanded
Wee~nd peak demand occas.., with 36 spaces demanded’
(Appen~x C page 10). However, ~ noted above, ~e on-s~eet
p~g dem~d is merely ~ est~ation b~ed on ~acc~ate dam.
~e p~g lot occup~cy may have ~cluded veNcles relined to
b~ cons~ction activi~,. Visitor logs ~e ~acc~ate. ~erefore,
~s ~o~ation is l~ely ~acc~ate.
v.For ~e S~)~e facifi~, ~e me~odolo~, used to ~ve
at the conciusio~ is ~cle~. ~e ~& states ~at ’~Nng lot
utilizagon was determined f!’om the level of ac~viO., in and out of
the par~g loF’ (Appen~ C p~e 16). ~ sugges~
dem~d was dete~ed by automatic co~. ~e ~o m~
co~t periods were app~enfly not done at pe& ho~s. However,
previously, ~e ~ had ~ted (Appen& C page 3) ~at "while the
automa~c drivew~" counts were not accurate enough to provide
wee~, or wee~nd peakpar~ng accumulations, they provided
some indication qf ac~viO, in and out of the p~kqng facilities."
vi. ~so wi~ reg~d to ~e S~)~’Ne fac~,, ~e ~ s~tes
¯ at "’It should be noted that vehiclesp~ng on the sweet in
spaces other th~ those located directly adjacent to the facilio,
were not accounted for in the peakpar~qng demand calculations"
(Appen~x C page 16). ~erefore S~?~,Ne fig~es ~ely
~dereg~ate p~g ~pac~.
v~. Wi~ reg~d to ~e S~ Mateo facN~" studied,
states (Appen~ C p~e 13) ~t "as the paring lot is resen,ed for
the use of residents and staff only, the ~est si~-in logs
uglized to estimaw the level Qf ~est par~ng ac~viO, during peak
lot usage." However, ~est si~-~ logs ~dereg~ate activi~ ~to
~d out of Ne site.
~so, ~ reg~d to ~e S~ Mateo site, ~e ~ notes ~at
"’the above peak pw’~ng rates axsume all smff and residents park
o~-si~e, ~hile all visitors park on the street. Should all slaff not
park i~ the desi~2ated lot, actual peakpar~ng demand ra~es m~,
be higher." It is N~y ~ely ~at "a~ s~’ p~k
desisted lot at ~ ~es. ~erefore pe~ p~t~g dem~d rates
~e ~ety
10
6.Also, the TLA and MINrD do not provide an adequate analysis of the park_ing and
other differences that exist between the various facilities studied and compare
them with the site-specific characteristics of the proposed Palo Alto facili~;. The
TL& studies Sunrise facilities in San Marco, Sunn~,ale, and Pemluma to generate
data that it applies to the proposed Palo Alto facili~,.
7. I visited the Sunrise Belmont facili~, on a Monday in September. At the time of
my visit, I was informed that the facilit-y had only 50 .residents, althougla the
facili~; reportediy has 74 units and a capacity for 89 residents, (i.e., it was only
56% occupied at that time with respect to residents). Moreover, I was told that the
facilitT would be hiring additional staff as the number of residents increased.
However, upon my arrival at 2 p.m., the 25 on-site parking spaces were full)’
occupied, and my car and another car circled the on-site parking lot searching in
vain for on-site parking before I was directed by a staff member to a nearby
church/school off-site parking location used by the facility. I was told by that staff
member that staffis instructed to park at this off-site location. Given the fact that
the Belmont facili~, vv_,as only 56% occupied at the time and that the facili~, is
planning to accommodate 3 9 more residents and their visitors and additional staff
in the future who would use on- and off-site parkio_ g there as well, based on my
experience, the 35 total spaces (25 on-site and 10 off-site according so the memo)
would appear to be insufficient to adequately and consistently self-park the
facili~,.
~. Also while at Belmont,. I watched the Sunrise Shuttle maneuver around the
narrow front circular &’-iveway. I counted as thi driver went back and forth 5
times in order to maneuver the shuttle into the correct position at the front
entrance, to unblock the drivew~, that the Shuttle was blocking, and to allow a
taxi to pull in and pass him. Each time it backed up the Shuttle made a loud and
disruptive beeping sound, contributing to noise impacts in the nei~borhood.
9. The applicant claims that most assisted living resident do not typically have
vehicies and that the par’~ldng iot is primaziiy for visitors and staff. However, the
applicant has not a~eed to Iimit the number of vehicles at the Palo Alto faciliD~
that would be operated by residents. If such a restriction is not implemented, then
it is possible that a si_.~mificant number of the parking spaces could be occupied by
residents. (At the Belmont facilit.’, I was told that "a handful" of the 50 residents
have cars; and the faciliD, is only 56% occupied.)
C. Traffic: Deliveries
Altho ~ugh the project address is 2701 E1 Camino Real, the project’s actual main entrance
is on Sheridan Avenue, a narrow local street already densely developed in the project .
area. Sheridan is already affected by delivery vehicles that double park along this .narrow
street which, as noted above, is already heavily parked during the day. Sheridan Avenue
will sustain significant impacts with respect to circulation and parking as a result of the
proposed development, impacts which the TL4 and the lVIDN fail to disclose, and these
impacts will be exacerbated by deliveries that will occur along Sheridan to the proposed
facili~,.
11
The lvLN-D state (page 24) that "’To reduce the impact qf rruck double parkSng on
Sheridan, and to reduce the loss of parking on Sheridan, the prqiect must hm~e a 60-foot
loading zone on El Camino Real... The 607foot loading zone on El Camino Real is a
Condin’on of Approval for the project." It is important to note that the IvIND uses the
word "’reduce" and not the word "’eliminate" in describing the impact of "truck double
parl~ng on Sheridan."
It is obvious that deliveries to the proposed project will occur on Sheridan (despite the E1
Camino loading zone) thus impacting the street, and the !VtND and TIA have failed to
adequately consider this impact.
Deliver?..; trucks are already accustomed to making deliveries to other buildings on
Sheridan and to double par’king along Sheridan in this block. Because the front entrance
of the proposed Sunrise facility is on She~dan and not along E1 Camino, it is highly
likely that a significant number of delivery tructas (particularly smaller vehicles) will
make their deliveries from Sheridan rather than E1 Camino. Some deliver, companies
v~411 likely just continue their customary deliver)., pattern and double park along Sheridan.
Also, it is highly unlikeb, that Sunrise officials and employees will consistently and
adequately monitor this situation. By itself., the fact that the 60-foot loading zone is
included as a "Condition of Approval for the project" (~D page 24) does not provide
adequate reassurance to members of the public ~ven the number of other development
projects in Palo Alto where conditions of approval have not been carried out.
During a site visit to the Belmon~ Sunrise facitity by Planning and Transportation
Commissioners and members of the public, we were told that all deliveries occur at
another side of this facili~, away from the main driveway and main entrance. However,
during the visit, a UPS mack backed up to the main entranceway, partially blocking the
circular driveway, and the driver spent a considerable amount of time unloading and
m~aking multiple trips to and from the truck and into the faciiiD, delivering items that
included cleaning products and disposable underwear. Although The Sunrise
representatives had indicated that "all deliveries" at the Belmont facilir. occur at a
different entrance/driveway, the deliver truck improperly parked and unloaded at the
front entrance. Furthermore, although there were a number of Sunrise employees in the
vicini~’, no one from the facilivy corrected the driver and directed him to the proper
delive~, entrance.
It is clear that deliveries, probably a significant number of deliveries, to the project site
will occur on Sheridan Avenue and affect the traffic circulation in this block. And the
"Condition of Approval" does not provide an?, method of ensuring that deliveries will be
properly monitored. The project proposes to house 97 residents and it also includes on-
site staff2 The number of deliveries required to support the residents pius staff" of the
proposed facili~, will be considerable--food and supplies to provide over 2!00 weekly
meals; also U.S. mail sen,ice, FedEx, UPS deliveries, etc. Also, residents are encouraged
to bring their own furniture and personal items to furnish their rooms; therefore, there
will reg~flarly be moving trucks and vehicles moving residents and their belong~gs into
and out of the building. How would enforcement of correct delive~, practices and
12
locations occur? If vehicles make deliveries along Sheridan, the5, would most likely
double park along the street, some for considerable periods of time, which would
exacerbate congestion and adversely impact s~eet safety. The TIA and the lX~L-NrD fail to
analyze the impacts of the addition of these deliveries to the roadw~, and fail to
satisfactorily address these issues.
D. Traffic: Construction Impacts
The impacts on traffic, circulation, parking, and safety in the project area and on
residents of the project area during the prolonged period needed to complete construction
of the proposed facility are not discussed and analyzed in the environmental documents.
Sheridan is a narrow local street that serves important traffic circulation needs at the
project location. Sheridan is also already hem,ily parked with cars during important
weekday and weekend hours. As noted previously, par-king along Sheridan supports the
CaLifornia Avenue business district and other important local needs as well. The
construction impacts will be_ si~maificant at this location, and these issues must be
addressed before project approval.
E. Lack of Adequate Public Benefits to Justin the Planned Communitx’
Zone District Requ ested
The proposed project provides inadequate public benefits to justS, the Planned
Community rezone requested. At the Architectural Review Board meeting of February 5,
2004, there were concerns expressed regarding the vagueness of the lance and the
lack of specificity and detail regarding the project’s purported "pubLic benefits" as well
as the lack of substantive public benefits provided. This is especially tree given the huge
excesses with respect to zoning and the significant benefits being provided to the owner
of the prope_m.~, 8nct ~-h~ deve!oper and *.he profits that v.,~! accrue to them as a result of the
Planned Communi~, zoning requested.
In the current Staff Report for the March 4, 2004 Architectural Revimv Board meeting,
there have not been veu’ substantial changes made to provide more substantive public
benefits. Also, #1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 discussed below are va~_mae with inadequate detail
provided to enable adequate assessment.
Board and Care for 11 Residents: The Sunrise faciIiw would have as its
primary target residents a ve~, limited se_~ment of seniors.
a. The costs of residential care at a Sunrise facili~, are substantial; therefore,
the vast majofi~, of market rate units at the proposed Palo Alto facility
would be affordable to only a very limited group of seniors. The provision
to only 11 of the 97 residents of"board and care services at subsidized
levels" is not a substantial public benefit when compared to the zoning
excesses allowed through the Planned CommuniU, rezone.
b. _Also, skilled medical, nursing, and rehabilitation care required by many
seniors would not be available at the proposed facility.
13
c. Therefore, the vast majoriD~ of local seniors would probably not be
eligible for residency at the faciliD, either for financial reasons or because
they require the "kind of care that the Sunrise facilities fail to provide.
d. Moreover, the exact details of the "board and care sen,ices at subsidized
levels to 11 residents receiving below market rate housing benefits" have
not been adequately specified.
2.Public Landscape Are~,~: The proposed "pedestrian and bus rider friendly
area....facing El Camino Real’’ would provide a ver~___.2 Iimited public benefit. Only
a very limited number of people, probably mostly VTA bus riders for short
periods of time, would likely use the space Even its location at a very b~usy and
very noi~ site along E1 Camino near the Oregon Expressway/P~e Mil! Road
intersection. The second public area along Sheridan would also not likely by used
by the public to a sig-nificant extent and mav not even be recognized as open to
the public. Also, inadequate details have been provided regarding these proposed
landscape areas.
3. Meeting Space for Palo Alto Seniors: Sunrise’ offer that the faciliD, become a
focal point for Palo Alto seniors and the applicant’s proposal "to u~ork u,ith
Avenidas Senior Cen~er and make available meeting space ~,ithin the proposed
Sunrise home and (to) schedule events that u,ould be open ~o all seniors in the.
Palo Alto area" would further exacerbate traffic problems, congestio~ and
parking along Sheridan. This additional traffic is not accounted for in the trip and
parking generation rates cited in the TIA. Nor is it clear how events "open to all
seniors in the PaIo Alto area" would only "email the use of shuttle vehicles to
avoid an), additional traffic impacts" and not automobiles as well (page 3, March
4, 2004 Staff Report). The lack of specificit32 regarding this issue deprives
members of the public and other reviewers of important information that is
necessaI32 to determine the adequacy of the public benefit that is being used to
justif3, the Planned Communib, Zone District and the sQ~miJScant departures from
current zoning requested by the project applicant.
4. Trees for Et Camino: The Staff Report states that "Sunrise ~,ill contribute
20, 000 dollars to the trees for El Camino project for side~,alkimedian
improvements and!or rreeplanting" (page 3). Compared ~dth the significant
profits that Sunrise will realize as a result of the benefits and excesses allowed
through the Planned Communi~, zoning, this 20,000 dollar contribution seems
minimal and does not provide an adequate public benefit to justifi..~ the rezone.
5. Public Art: The Staff Report notes (page 3) that "Sunrise is investigating several
possibilities for the inclusion of public art in¢o the project..." Because no details
are provided, the pubhc cannot assess whether or not the will involve ant, actual
benefit to the pubhc.
6. Access to the XVI’A Lot: I believe that it was mentioned at the March 4, 2004
ARB meeting that this proposed pubhc benefit has been abandoned as an optionl
It should be noted that if the Sunrise project is built as proposed, there may be a
loss of abihry to develop the VTA tot in a productive and efficient way. The
proposed Sunrise development may actually severely limit options for future
development of the VTA site. Mr. Zemanek, a Sunrise representative, mentioned
at the March 4th ,zd~!3 meeting that there is access to the VTA lot on two streets,
14
Oregon ExpresswayfPage Milt and E1 Camino. However... why then did the
Sunrise faciliw not locate its principal driveway and entrance on E1 Camino
rather than on Sheridan? E1 Camino is the actual address of the property, not
Sheridan. The main entrance to the nurser3.,, previously on the site was apparently
on El Camino. The project’s proposed driveway on Sheridan exacerbates
considerably traffic impacts and safety hazards along Sheridan. A cMveway on E1
Camino would have lessened the project’s impacts on the neighborhood. I was
under the impression that there were safer3., issues along E1 Camino that were used
by the Planning Division to justify the project’s drivew~" on Sheridan. Yet
driveway safety issues would seem to be even ~eater at the VTA site which is
located closer to the Oregon!El Camino intersection.
F. Sunrise’ ProfitabilitW
The "Remarks of Ptml d. KIaassen, Sunrise Assisted Living Chairman and CEO and
Thomas Newell, Sunrise Assisted Living President, Second-Quarter 2003 Earnings
Call, August 6, 2003" (See Attachment entitled "Stock Chart for Sunrise.
Au~st 28, 2003") include the following statements regarding the quarter’s financial
results:
~.S Revenue grew 179 percem, over a 3,ear ago to $335 million.
~ Net income for the quarter increased 41 percent to $16 million.
~ Compared to last year, EPS for the second quarter of 2003
increased 43 percent to $0.67 per share. This was $0.02 per share
above the high end of our EPS __~xidance range .... "
Sunrise is a ver~, profitable company. A_s pointed out by Troy Underwood,.
resident of 435 Sheridan adjacent to the proposed Sunrise deve!opment, in his September
5, 2003 letter to the Planning and Transportation Commission, "It has been suggested
that high densiW is required (at this site) because of the cost of the bare land. That
statement is paramount to as’king the neighbors to help share in the cost of enriching the
developer and landowner."
The proposed project provides inadequate public benefits to justin, the Planned
CommuniU rezone requested.
G. Additional Issues
1.Please provide verification of the maximum number of residems that will be
a~ow-~ a*~ the ,,,’,,,--o~ S’~se facifit-¢? On what ;~
assurances do members of the punic have that this number will not be exceeded?
2.What if any tax revenues will the faciliW generate for the City" of Palo Alto?
3.What are the fiscal implications to the CiW of the loss ofnei~borhood-serving
~ound floor retail which the proposed project would eliminate?
4.The Source References cited in the MND include "Project Plans, entitled ’Sunrise
at Sheridan Avenue’.. dated January. __, "~’~ 2004 prepared by Mithun.. Inc." Does the
15
City anticipate that the project address will be changed to Sheridan _Avenue? At
the ARB meeting of March 4, 2004, this possibility was suggested by the
applicant/representative. Sunrise has previously failed to disclose and discuss this
possibility ,~,ith the nei~borhood. If there is a change to be made, then this must
be disclosed and the additional impacts related to the change of address (such as
additional impacts related to deliveries based on the Sheridan address) must be
studied.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Angelica Votterra
16
Questionnaire Regarding Trip Routes To and From Silverwood
Condominiums, 435 Sheridan Avenue
The following questionnaire entitled "Tra[tTc patterns to and [rom 435 Sheridan Ave.,
Silverwood Comtominiums" was submitted to residents of the Silverwood condominium
complex located at 435 Sheridan, the property which is immediately adjacent to the
proposed project.
The responses received confirm thin assertions made in the "Final Report: Transportation
Impact.Analysis for Sunrise Assisted Lh4ng FaciliD;, Palo Alto, California" ("TIA")
dated January 2004 prepared 5y Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, about "all
inbound traffic" and "’all outbound traffic" in connection w4th at least 8 of the 16 trip
distribution routes discussed in the TtA are incorrect. (Note: question #1 actually
contains two routes, as it describes traffic headed both north and south on US 280.)
Of 10 responses receive& only one respondent’s answers corresponded wdth routes
mentioned in the TIA, and then only for the two routes noted in question # 2 and question
#6. In all other responses received,, the routes used by Sflverwood residents differed from
those to which the TLA assigms "all" traffic.
With the exceptions noted above, the answers highlighted in yellow are responses
received from Silverwood residents. The answers higi~i~ted in red are the TIA’s trip
distribution routes:
2raffic patterns to and from 435 Sherida:n A~re., Si!~e,-wood
Condominiums
~7=~s= find "-~ ""..__ ~.....m=_,o~., 7 simple ~uestions regarding how you d~.~{v= to and
from Silverwood Condominiums. Please take 5 minutes to click in your
answers below and send me the results by return E-mail. This
information of our traffic patterns may help us to berter commen[ on
~he Yraffi~ impact .~_n_alvsis done for ~he Sunrise ~roj=~ r,~ 7 responses
~ill be kept anonymous.
insrructions: initiar_e reply to this e-mail to me, and then click X,
by 5,our choices for answers for the 7 quesrions. Then E-"send" your
answers ~o me for compilation, i wi!l send you a sums, arT of al!
results Eha[ i receive. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Questionnaire Regarding Trip Routes Used To and From Silverwood Condos
2.r~ r want to go to Highway 280 from Silverwood, i would:
Sh___~an, right onzo Ash, right onto Oregon,a.Turn right onto
and continue on mau= ~77.
b. Turn left onto Sheridan, right onto E1 Camino, U-turn at
California to head south on E1 Camino, and turn right on Oregon, and
continue on Page ~II
d.__Turn right onto Sheridan, left onto Ash, !eft onto
left onto E! Camino, right onto Page -V~I!
e.Other
2.~ T am traveling SOUTH on E1 Camino (e.g., from Menlo Park) and
want to go to Siiverwood, i would:
b.Turn left onto Grant, ~{~h~ onto Ash, and ~{ght onto Sheridan
c.__Turn left at the Page _v_i!l/Oregon Zx_fforessway intersection, U-
turn onto E1 Camino heading north, and right onto Sheridan
3.~ r want to go SOUTH on E1 Camino from Si!verwood, i would:
a.__Turn right onto-Sheridan, right onto Ash, right onto Oregon,
and left onto E1 Camino heading south
b. __Turn ief[ onto Sheridan, right onto E! Camino, U-turn at
Ca!ifornia!El
Camino intersection to head south on E! Camino
d.Other
4. if i am traveling NORTH on B~ghway !0i, and want to go to
Si!verwood, i would:
a.Exit !0i at Oregon, turn right onto Birch, and left onto
Sheridan
b.Exit !0! at Oregon, turn right onto Ash, and left onto Sheridan
th er
want to go SOUTH on Highway !.0! from e~ 7 =~-.~-~-v-_~.ood, i would:
b. __Turn right onto Sheridan, right onto Park Boulevard, right onto
Oregon
Turn !eft onto Sheridan, right onto E! Camino, U-turn at
C~~ ~ornia to travel south on E1 Camino, ~urn left onto Oregon
d.__Turn ri~ht~ onto Sheridan, _7=sty_ onto Ash, left onto ~a=_._, ~ ~:-’o,n~a ~ " ,
!eft onto E1 Camino, left onto Oregon, and enter 101 from Oregon
e. OEher
6.~ r want to go to a:!ve:woo~ from northbound Foothill
Expressway, I would:
a. Turn __.~{~ht ongo Page _Mill, turn left onto E1 Camino, and turn
right onto Sheridan
c.Other
7.__r~ _T want to co_ south on Foo~_hi!! Expressway_ ~ from S..~# ~ ~=~ ....~oo~,~ _T
would:
b. Turn right onto Sheridan, right onto Ash, right onto Oregon,
continue on Daa= ~ 77 turn 7e~t onto Foothill
Turn ~aht onto Sheridan, right onto Ash ~’:~ht onto Oregon,
continue on.~ao=_~ .~i!!, ~urn ._~_7=st onto Hanover Stree[, left onto
~_~!iview Avenue, !eft onto Foo~_hi!!
d. Turn ie~t onzo Sheridan right onto E! Camino, U-turn at
California to head south on E1 Caminc, rum righ: onto Page _w._i..!!, rum
left onto Foothill
e. Turn !eft onto Sheridan richt onto E! Camino, U-turn at
California to head sou.:h on E1 Cam_4. nc, ~urn right onto Page t_~i!l, turn
left onto Hanover Street, 1=~ onto~__n~,:~._.~.. Avenue, left onco Foo~_hi!!
5.Ocher
The End]
Stock Chart for Sunrise. Au_m.st 28, 2003
SRE Z’,a i ~ F’
O0 01 02 03
35
30
25
20
15
I0
5
20 o
I0 --
Remarks of Paul J. Klaassen
Sunrise Assisted Listing Chairman and CEO
and Thomas Newell
Sunrise Assisted Living President
Second-Quarter 2003 Earnings Call
Aug-ust 6, 2003
"Good mormng and welcome to Sunrise Senior Living’ s conference call to review bur
second quarter 2003 results.
The second quarter was a very important quarter for Sunrise as it mark the f~rst full
quarter of operations since we closed the Marriott Senior Living transaction at the end of
March. Before getting into the numbers, I would like to say that the inte~ation process is
going very well and we are .meeting our operating and financial expectations as we
continue our management services transformatio~ We have a passion for serving seniors
and with 346 communities now operating, we fred it veB, satisf}4ng that our dedicated
team members are now able to serve man), more residents, in many more locations,
offering an ever geater varieE of services. Our income statement and balance sheet
reflect the benefits associated with our management ser~ices transformation as well.
Those benefits include - - steadily gowing revenues and earnings generated by stable,
long-term management contracts, as well as, less debt and higher cash levels. We are
optimistic about the future of Sunrise Senior Living because we have put together
a team of now over 30,000 dedicated staff and we’ve built this organization on a soiid
financial base with recurring revenue streams, little debt and excellent gowth prospects.
NP.~ !et’_S !o°_).a~_~e_.qu.a_~e_r’s__fman.e-ia!.r_.~S.~_:
¯ Revenue gew 179 percent, over a year ago to $335 millionl
¯ Net income for the quarter increased 41 percentto $16 million.
¯ Compared to last year, EPS for the second quarter of 2003 increased 43 percent to $0.67
per share. This was $0.02 per share-above the hi~ end of our tSPS _mddance-range.
Attachment G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes
December 18, 2003
(Begin this item on Tape #2 at 1410)
2701 El Camino Real [03-PC-02] [03-ARB-05] [03-EIA-15]: Request by Sunrise
Development Inc. on behalf of Morris Page Mill LLC for a planned community zone
change for a four-story 82,000 square-foot senior assisted living facility with one
level of underground parking and associated site improvements, zone district CN
and RM-40. No recommendation is requested by the ARB at this time.
Board Member Drew Maran: Staff want to introduce this, please.
Mr. Russ Reich, Associate Planner: Thank you chairman and Board members. This
application before you this morning is for the initial review of a Planning Commission
community zone change application, request for the construction of an 81-unit senior
assisted living facility at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Sheridan
Avenue. The building is proposed to be four stories with one level of below-grade
parking, to include 40 spaces.
This application has been before the Planning Commission twice, and the proposal
before you today is the version of the plan forwarded on by the pc. During the
Planning and Transportation Commission review, several neighborhood concerns
were raised. In response to these concerns the project proposal has been revised in
the following ways:
1.The proposed building has been moved away from the Silverwood complex
and closer to Sheridan and El Camino.
The third and fourth floors have also been shifted closer to El Camino Real to
move the taller portions of the building away from the Silverwood complex.
3.Noise-generating equipment and activities have been moved towards El
Camino frontage to eliminate noise impacts on the Silverwood complex.
The entrance to the ramp that provides access to below grade parking has
been relocated to access the garage from the auto court rather than a
separate curb cut near Silverwood complex.
5.Proposed loading zone has also been moved from Sheridan to El Camino
Real to provide additional on-street parking on Sheridan.
The applicant intended to present this application in a preliminary form to the ARB.
The applicant submitted a preliminary application in January of this year, but after a
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
month of delay in trying to get on the City Council agenda the application has
decided to move forward with formal review.
Staff has recommended that the applicant come before you at this time to get initial
response from the ARB prior to finalizing the plans for your formal consideration.
Staff requests that the ARB provide comment and direction to the applicant on the
current proposal. The direction you provide today will enable the applicant to
prepare a formal application for your review and recommendation at a later date,
we’re hoping January 15.
Staff is in the process of conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment based on
this current proposal and will circulate the environmental document prior to the
formal review of this application by the ARB.
The applicant is here to make a brief presentation and answer any questions that
you may have.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, Russ. Would the applicant come up and make a
presentation, introduce yourself for the record, please.
Mr. Dan Zemanek, Sunrise Representative: Thank you. My name is Dan Zemanek.
I’m with Sunrise Senior Living, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board
members, for allowing us the opportunity to introduce our proposed design for
Sunrise of Palo Alto which is going to be an 81-unit assisted living home at Sheridan
and El Camino Real.
21 By way of background, very quickly, Sunrise Senior Living has been providing
22 assistance to seniors since 1981. Today we have close to 400 homes in three
23 countries, and we’ve just broken ground in Germany, which will be our fourth. We
24 serve nearly 40,000 seniors. The Sunrise philosophy has been to provide help for
25 these seniors in a totally residential manner, both from the inside and outside, as
26 opposed to any institutional environment.
27 As you know, design of a senior facility starts on the inside because of the special
28 needs of our seniors. Our residents have lost their independence; however, they are
29 not ill, but they are frail. Our average age resident is somewhere around 83-84
30 years, and they require assistance with various activities of daily living.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
In addition, all of our assisted living homes have what we call a reminiscence
neighborhood for residents afflicted with various forms of cognitive impairment such
as Alzheimer’s. This particular Palo Alto home will have 22 out of the 81 total suites
devoted to cognitive impairment.
We come here today seeking your comments and suggestions regarding our design,
a design that has gone through many iterations over the past year. We have
actively worked with Planning staff. We’ve had two public hearings with Planning
and Transportation, and in addition we have had discussions with neighbors, and we
have attempted to incorporate much of what we have heard into our homes.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
As you may know, assisted living homes make a wonderful neighbor. They’re quiet,
they do not generate traffic, we do not have parking is~.ues like many other concepts
might have, and we’re looking forward to working with you and to ultimately provide
a Sunrise home here in Palo Alto that we can all be proud of.
We have two important team members here present today for this meeting. We’ve
got Gerry McDevitt from Methoon Architects in Seattle, Washington. Gerry’s firm,
Methoon, specializes in design of senior facilities throughout the West Coast, and
Methoon and Gerry specifically have designed many of our Sunrise homes. They
understand the needs of seniors, and we have a great deal of confidence in that
relationship.
11 And in addition to Gerry, we have a!o present Linda Gates from David Gates &
12 Associates of Danville who is the la ~scape architect for our Northern California
13 homes. Again, Gates understands our residents and their special needs. We have
14 much confidence in their abilities as well. Gates has worked on about a dozen
15 projects for us in Northern California.
16 Also with me today is my associate in the Bay Area, Bill Lindstrom from Sunrise.
17 And I would like now to Gerry McDevitt to take you through the design features.
18 Thank you.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
Mr. Gerry McDevitt: Thank you; good morning. There have been packets handed
out to all of you that show the small site plan diagrams, #1 through 4.1. I think I can
base how long I should talk about it from the boards. If you have it, it’s a lot easier.
They were 8-1/2 ~: 11.
That’s this summary.
Mr. Reich: I just want to add a clarification. I don’t think that your packets actually
contain the four previous alternatives reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. McDevitt: But I’d like to give this to them just so they can pass it around. I think
it’d be easier. Thanks.
As Russ described in the beginning of our presentation, we had proposed what we
show as AIt. 1, which was quite a different building that we’re bringing to you today.
AIt. 1 was a building that was really a negative corner as opposed to a very positive
corner at the corner of El Camino and Sheridan. There was a small auto court, and
it presented enough difficulties for both the reviewers as well as some of the
neighbors in terms of whether it adhered to the El Camino design guidelines and
issues such as site access, service, location of generator, and other noise-
generating were potential problems and really, the proximity of the building on the
site as it got close to the adjacent Silverwood condominiums.
So without dwelling on these plans too long, I’d like to just say that we studied
variations to Alternate 1 in terms of opening up the corner, before we abandoned
that idea, so that the auto court was bigger; relocating service access, etc.; parking
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
access. Ultimately we’ve come up with what we’re bringing to you to day, which is
this small site plan you see on the easel down at the bottom. And on the far right
you can see a much more developed drawing which Linda has prepared showing
the landscape for that particular proposal.
What we’ve done is we have moved the service access from this location. The
service is now proposed on El Camino Real at the closest to the corner zone of that
dedicated bus lane. Also we’ve moved the drive down to the garage in proximity to
that motorized door which was right here to really bring the access to the garage off
of the auto court to where the motorized door is really under a lid. And I’ll describe
the plans in a little more detail.
We’ve also located the generator and transformer from this location to this location
and have brought trash and recycled goods into the building so they’re a little more
controlled and ventilated. So the services are really oriented at about this part of the
site close to service where they’re not going to affect residents in terms of noise.
15 And we have made a major change in that the building, which was a negative
16 corner, is now very much a positive corner. The building comes out and fills the
17 corner. And we have an auto court more in an indentation in the building fagade,
18 more in the center of the fagade as opposed to the end of it.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Those are the major departures from the initial plan. With that in mind, Dan
mentioned the goal for this project, and certainly my goal as well, is to present a high
quality residential setting for seniors of the Palo Alto community that really fits into
the South El Camino Real guidelines as well as appear residential and not
institutional so that it does well along Sheridan and the existing neighbors. The
character of the building was purposely craftsman inspired, if I can say that. We
don’t want it to be a California stucco, not that mansion kind of look, but something
that is also very different from what appears as a repetitive multi-family form. It’s
intentionally not too contemporary, and it’s certainly not literal to craftsman, but
we’ve borrowed from elements of columns, column bases, railings, eave detailing,
very interesting porch detailing, window trim, brackets up in the big eaves - they’re
exaggerated a bit, but I think the building needs it. And we’ve also made a very
strong attempt at defining the fourth floor as more penthouse so that we really read a
horizontal strong band at the top of level three.
If I walk through the plans - and you have small copies of this - you can see that the
ramp comes down the garage. It continues to slope very gently down here, but the
card key control is under the lid, the door is right here, and the slope terminates right
about there. The intent is that this is a little bit deeper, this zone, so that we can
park the Sunrise small van there instead of leaving it up on the court as was
proposed on the initial scheme. We have 40 parking spaces. That’s enough for the
garage.
The first floor plan - and I’ve shown this diagrammatically as the common areas, the
support areas in blue, and the resident rooms in yellow- but you can see from the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 Sunrise building such as this, about 35-40% of the floor plan is dedicated to indoor
2 common area and support. And that’s a very strong program guideline with Sunrise
3 to encourage the residents to be out of their rooms and engage in activities all day.
4 Board Member Maran: I’d ask you to wrap it up and we’ll have plenty of questions for
5 you.
6 Mr. McDevitt: The colors are good enough for now.
7 Second floor, you can see that there’s a concentration of activity areas. The
8 reminiscence floor Dan mentioned is the third floor with a dedicated outdoor
9 courtyard.
10 Fourth floor, mostly residential.
11 If I refer to the elevation - I thought it was a little far away, so I wanted to just give
12 you some small copies so you could look at it - the materials that we’re talking about
13 are stone veneer or brick - we’ve been debating that - at the base of columns, at the
14 corner tower elements, and at the base of the projecting bays. That would be the
15 extent of it. But it’s fairly important to note that those porch elements and the
16 perimeter low fence with the handcrafted ironwork between these stone plints will
17 bring a very nice urban but semi-private quality to it.
18 One very important element that Linda is going to describe in more detail are the
19 amenity areas that we’ve dedicated in this location and this location, as well as a
20 really elegant landscape concept.
21 Board Member Maran: Why don’t we wrap it up and we’ll have questions for you.
22 Mr. McDevitt: You want me to address actual site lighting, mechanical systems, etc.
23 as questions?
24 Board Member Maran: We can ask you questions about that.
25 Mr. McDevitt: Are you clear enough on the exterior materials?
26 Board Member Maran: We’ll ask you questions about that, too.
27 Mr. McDevitt: Okay.
28 Board Member Maran: We’re in a very tight agenda today, and your presentation
29 had ten minutes and it’s well over that, so let’s get to questions.
30 Mr. McDevitt: Thanks. I’d like to introduce Linda briefly.
31 Ms. Linda Gates, Architect: I’ll answer questions.
32 Board Member Maran: We’ll ask Linda questions, too, if it’s appropriate. Susan,
33 would you like to begin.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Board Member Susan Eschweiler: First question is not directly related to the
architectural style or anything, but what is the rationale for the parking of 40 spaces?
Mr. McDevitt: The rationale is to try to achieve 50%, or one car per two units as a
program goal for Sunrise. Of course, in many municipalities as low as .25 per unit is
allowed, but that seems to be difficult when you really factor in visitors on big
holidays. What we don’t want to do is put a lot of parking on the street. A lot of the
staff and employees will use public transportation, but it’s an option Sunrise has
been willing to make.
Board Member Eschweiler: And how many employees will be working here on a
daily basis?
Mr. McDevitt: I’ll defer to Dan on that.
Mr. Zemenek: At maximum times, typically between 10:30 or 11:00 and 3:00 in the
afternoon there’ll be approximately 22.
Board Member Eschweiler: On the site plans that we have in our packet, there are
maybe two versions, or it’s turned differently in two places. One shows the east
property line as a straight line, and then on some of the site plans there’s this
adjunct piece shown as a rectangle. Please explain what that is and what that’s
about.
Mr. McDevitt: The illustrative landscape plan on the right, there is a version of that
with this removed. And there’s a version with it included. Now that’s a wish list item,
but we’d like to encourage it because that’s where the bus is for the VTA lot. And in
order to make this more of a meaningful mini-park rest area for people who are
waiting for the bus, it would be nice if it could engage it. That’s what that attempts to
show.
Board Member Eschweiler: But that’s not on your property.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s right.
Board Member Eschweiler: So the proposal is to develop a park-like atmosphere
corner...
Mr. McDevitt: To this point.
Board Member Eschweiler: ...on the neighboring property.
Mr. McDevitt: Up to this point. And if the neighboring property was interested, they
could participate. It still works without.
Board Member Eschweiler: So without it, there is no landscape buffer at the edge of
the property?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 Mr. McDevitt: Other than a green plane, because it is a drive with turf block, yes.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Board Member Eschweiler: The next question - it actually may be for Linda as well -
planting over the garage. The garage, the inset showed the driveway coming
around underneath. The ramp goes down and then it swings around underneath the
garage, and what’s shown is landscaping and trees and everything over the garage
structure itself.
Ms. Gates: That would be a roof deck area. So this area right here and this narrow
area here would actually be planting that would be occurring on a roof deck. So the
garage roof is recessed enough so we can get a minimum level of sun, and we’re
doing some berming to get larger plants. In this area we’ll probably have a raised
planting area in the middle, you can see by the double line, so this garden area
would be on a roof deck, although the intention is not to have you be aware that it’s
on a roof deck, that it looks like a garden area.
Board Member Eschweiler: Have you looked at the elevations in context with the
neighboring properties?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. You had the photos passed around? Now the building across
the street, 410, that’s a 4-1/2-story bay stucco building.
Board Member Eschweiler: No, I don’t need you to describe them to me. I wondered
if you had drawn out elevations...
Mr. McDevitt: No, we have not drawn them, we’ve assembled photos.
Board Member Eschweiler: ...To look at how the roof heights and everything.
Mr. McDevitt: I don’t really think that trying to emulate the Silverwood and keep it
going would have been what we would propose at all.
Board Member Eschweiler: I’m not suggesting it, I just haven’t seen what you’ve
studied. A detail question on the floor plans. The units have different names and
one of them is called D-E-N-V. What does that stand for?
Mr. McDevitt: The Denver unit is a long unit that is really recognized as a studio with
loft or a two occupant studio. It’s required of course that 50% of the area, the
section through that unit, is open for that to happen.
Board Member Eschweiler: When you say it’s a loft, there may be stairs?
Mr. McDevitt: No, no it’s a den, it’s a studio den versus - it’s probably a wrong label I
gave it. It’s not really a loft because there’s no vertical ascent in the unit. It’s a
dumbbell-shaped studio with a bathroom and a kitchenette in between. And we’ll
have much more detailed plans of the units at our next meeting.
Board Member Eschweiler: And how will trash be handled at this facility?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mr. McDevitt: Trash recycling will be in a room approximately 24-25 feet deep, 12-14
feet wide. With that we’ll have maximum three-yard dumpsters that can be wheeled
out, picked up by a truck. And the recycling, we have some further meetings with
the particulars of how many containers and how they’re located. They’re smaller
and they’ll be picked up or wheeled in addition. But the kitchen and the service and
the back of the house corridor is really right here. So that provides easy access to
feed the trash room. That’ll have a dedicated HVAC and it’ll be cooled and
ventilated well. But the pickups are frequent, so it’s not a problem of something
sitting in there for days at a time.
Board Member Eschweiler: And I know in this type of facility security is always
important. Could you please review with us what the security design will be.
12 Mr. McDevitt: Upon entry a full-time concierge is located at the corner of the stairs.
13 And then staff offices are in this area. There is control at that point first of all, one
14 point of entry.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Board Member Eschweiler: Could I just interrupt for a second. We are under a tight
timeline. Our interests are really on the outside of the building, not in the individual
function. So when I was talking about security I was thinking about perimeter
security. I just wanted to clarify that question. Since you are on a busy street, El
Camino, and you’re near a bus stop and there’ll be public going by, how is that
controlled relative to the private yards, relative to the porches, that sort of thing.
Mr. McDevitt: Well the porches are railing height. I don’t think we advocate putting
any kind of higher barrier to keep residents in. The assisted living residents will be
escorted and walk around the perimeter of the property. But on their own they’re
really inside the building or the porch. The residents that you’re probably concerned
about are the ones who have more cognitive impairment, like Alzheimer’s residents.
They’re on the third floor and they don’t wander the height of the building. They’re
really on the third floor and there’s a higher level of staff ratio to residents there to
make sure that can’t happen.
Board Member Eschweiler: My concern is about the public accessing the facility.
30 Ms. Gates: There’s a fence here that prevents the public from penetrating any
31 deeper, and there’s a fence here. There are gates in these fences because the
32 residents aren’t prevented from leaving, but these are controlled so the public would
33 clearly know - like in this area the residents and the public could commingle and
34 meet here. But clearly, if the public was back here they would have had to go
35 through fence gates to get into the back area.
36
37
38
39
Board Member Maran: Thank you. David.
Commissioner David Solnick: My first question is about the height of the building. It
seems that you’ve sort of set a height limit for yourself, and how was that
established?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Board Member Maran: The building height is shown on the drawings at 44’8". It’s
shown to the ridge from finished floor, ~..~hich is well under the allowable for the PC
on this site of 50 feet. We think we car. work with that but on further development of
the systems, conflict of classic structural, mechanical - the floor-to-floors are fairly
tight. They’re 9’8" on the upper floors and they’re 11 feet for the first to second.
That’s what we consider a bare minimum. So we might be requesting a little
addition to that, but we wanted to stay well under the 50 feet for concerns of the
neighbors.
Board Member Solnick: Another ques~ .n about the public benefits. I’m not sure
how much that’s an ARB concern, but ’~nere’s a 55% FAR bonus as I understand it.
And it seems to me that the public benefit at this point is still kind of an afterthought.
Could you comment on that.
Mr. McDevitt: On the contrary. The public benefit has been with us since day one,
well over a year before we ever started the process. And we have worked very, very
hard with staff. For example, we’re going to have a BMR component, inclusionary
housing. That inclusionary housing on this particular project is not only going to
include the basis shelter component, but it’s also going to include services as well,
which is something that - we tried to figure this out, probably in the state of
California there is not another private assisted living home that has done this outside
of homes that have gotten either bond financing or they have been pushed to do
that. So that is a real public benefit to folks here in Palo Alto, as well as having
these park-like areas where we want the public to enjoy, as much as our residents,
the perimeter of our building. And that’s why we have provided benches, we are
also going to provide a chest-type table near the VTA bus stop to bring people in,
also to try to create this mini-park that would be located along the southeast portion
of our property that is in proximity to the VTA lot in case they do future development.
Even if they don’t we want to create that on our own property as well. And we’re
also being with Trees of Palo Alto. We have made a major contribution there, if our
project gets accepted, to enhance the area in front of our property along El Camino
Real. So it is not an afterthought. We understood going into this that getting PC
zone, it was very important to have this public benefit and we’ve worked very hard
and long hours with staff to come up with it.
Board Member Solnick: It seemed like there were still some negotiating going on
about that and I just didn’t see a lot of it in the architect itself, and I’d hate to have it
be decided later and then the architect already settles in, and it’d be more of an
applique as opposed to integrall But it does sound like you’ve been working on it
morethan I realized.
Apropos to one thing you mentioned, the landscaped amenity area on the southeast
corner. Who would be using that and how would they get there?
Mr. McDevitt: First of all, let me explain something, for all of us who live here, I still
get confused as to how El Camino Real runs. And so according to this the way it is,
it’s really El Camino runs east and west at this point believe it or not. And so
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
therefore, when we’re using southeast corner we’re talking about the corner that
would be nearest to the VTA bus stop. So what we would have - in fact, Linda
would be better off introducing or talking about this than I would - how we’re going to
integrate that area with the public.
Ms. Gates: We actually have a couple of- and I think that you have these in your
packets - little enlarged drawings of these two areas. So this is if we potentially
could landscape into the VTA, we’ll talk about it if we don’t. So what we know we
can control.
Board Member Solnick: I know the question was asked about that. But I was really
asking more specifically about not so much the extension and the alternatives, but
even without the alternative, how it gets...
Ms. Gates: That’s what I’m saying, referring you to the lower plan which does not
have that area. So what we have is a paved patio area coming through a little
portal. This is the fire access so it’s a grass area that’s got the pavers underneath it,
so we still have a lawn area. There’s a seating area, some benches. We talked
about adding some chest table areas. And this would be accessible to the public.
This is open to the public from here. The gate that protects the private areas from
the public areas are located back in this zone.
Board Member Solnick: So it’s a public...
Ms. Gates: It’s public. It’s like a little mini-park space.
Board Member Solnick: I can’t imagine wanting to use it myself.
22 Ms. Gates: I think that the images - well I guess if you were lingering waiting for the
23 bus, maybe it’s a place just to sit and wait. I think also the idea is that maybe
24 walking along the street these can sometimes provide respites. Ideally there would
25 be opportunities for both the residents and as I said, members of the community.
26 These might be places where they could meet with each other or sometimes there’s
27 just a sense of the activity with a streetlight.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Board Member Solnick: But you couldn’t get there without walking a long ways. The
residents can’t really get there very easily. They’d have to walk through the service
entrance.
Ms. Gates: They can come out of the building right here.
Board Member Solnick: Go all the way around, yes.
Ms. Gates: Right here. They can exit the building that way.
Board Member Solnick: Just seems unlikely.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Just a question about materials. Your color board shows that they’re all stucco.
There’s stucco and then horizontal bays and board and batten. There’s nothing
mentioned about horizontal siding. Isn’t most of the building horizontal siding?
Mr. McDevitt: Horizontal bays, is that on your board as well? That should be
horizontal siding. I apologize for that. Stucco bays.
Board Member Solnick: And how did you decide where to put the dining room on the
site, the site decision;
Mr. McDevitt: It has to do with presenting a more animated hospitality type of space
on the street in terms of the higher ceilings, the transom windows, the lighting, the
activities inside, the indoor/outdoor relationship so it doesn’t look like a quiet, dark
building when judged from the outside. Also it’s a place where the seniors like to be
because they like to be close to the activity. The last thing you want to do is retreat
to a quiet part of the building. The third component is that it’s imperative that the
dining be close to the kitchen and kitchen to service without corridors between.
Those are our three reasons.
Board Member Solnick: That’s all my questions. Thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, David. Ken.
Board Member Kenneth Kornber,q: Dining room - what I thought was nice about the
dining room also is that it has a solar exposure, but it’s hidden by the stairwell. Is
there any way that you can pull it out so it’ll get more afternoon - probably won’t get
any morning light - but did you look at that at all?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. The location of the stair probably makes more sense from an
upper floor point of view. And without transitioning it at one of the floors in a simple
four-story building, we kept going with it. What we thought was okay was to
separate the private dining from the dining, because you can see the end of the
dining room is right here.
Board Member Maran: What I was thinking is if you flip the studio on the upper floors
with the stair and then have the private dining - actually I would put the private
dining over by the front door- and then you’d at least get light coming in through
that whole side - whether we call it south or east side of the building - and then get
more light on there.
Mr. McDevitt: What I was trying to do is to avoid putting the stair right there, right on
the more glazed, accented bay projection of the building as well. That’s another
reason. I know there’s tradeoffs, but we felt that was a good one to make because it
is at the end of the dining room, and it makes perfect sense upstairs.
Board Member Maran: I’m having a hard time thinking of the service being actually
on El Camino. How much delivery, pickup - things like that - are there per day, do
you know?
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
Mr. McDevitt: During the week we’ve got a couple of major deliveries that come in.
Again, all of these deliveries will park on El Camino Real. We’ve run this through
Transportation and we’ve run this by the VTA as well. They will be parked on El
Camino, the deliveries will come off of the truck, and then right around the back of
the building into the service entrance. And then you’ve got some minor deliveries a
couple of more times a week with basically box vans. So you got probably four
trucks that will come in during the week. And then the typical other things are the
mailman comes every day and UPS or FedEx might drop off.
Board Member Maran: Where do they come?
Mr. McDevitt: They’ll probably make the turn at the front, drop off, and then pull out
right at the auto court.
Board Member Maran: And the trash?
Mr. McDevitt: Trash truck, we’ve also talked to the refuse company and they will
park on El Camino and remove the trash off the site. And we’re probably going to be
using toters rather than using any dumpsters. The plastic will be much quieter than
any dumpster would be back there.
Board Member Maran: So they’ll come out of that room called trash/recycle .~"7
Mr. McDevitt: Correct.
Board Member Maran: And then they’ll be wheeled down the fire lane?
Mr. McDevitt: Correct.
Board Member Maran: What is the fire lane? The material of the fire lane, is that...
Mr. McDevitt: It’s going to be something like grasscrete.
Board Member Maran: Will it be the kind of grasscrete in which you don’t see the
concrete?
Mr. McDevitt: That’s what we want.
Board Member Maran: I have a question of staff. Do you have any idea of the future
of the VTA site, whether they have any plans? Are they a long-term tenant owner,
or what’s happening there?
Mr. Reich: We’ve actually contacted the VTA to find out if there were any
opportunities to co-develop the sites to do something together. They’re not at a
point where they’re willing to do that, so they do intend to hold the site as parking.
They have looked at it and it isn’t considered excess or something that they want to
get rid of, so they’re going to continue using it. They did open up the option, they’re
willing to work with someone who would like to co-develop it with them, either
City of Palo Alto Page 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
purchase the property from them and maintain VTA parking spaces on site or lease
the space from them, but they’re not at any point where they’re willing to develop it
at this point, but they do want to hold onto the site.
Board Member Maran: Who are they? Are they a public entity or what?
Mr. Reich: The Valley Transportation Authority.
Board Member Kornberg: And is that county, city, state?
Mr. Reich: I believe it’s Santa Clara County.
Board Member Maran: It’s the county. And they own it outright?
Mr. Reich: Yes.
Board Member Maran: The main concern I have about the site planning is the
amount of light that you’ll get into all the landscaped areas. We didn’t see the
previous schemes except for the one you just showed us earlier, and I was trying to
understand whether there was a way to either consolidate the building more to have
better lighting in the nicest landscaped areas, and it’s really just sun. I’m mostly
worried that it’ll be dark or too cold in the landscaped areas for too many months of
the year.
Ms. Gates: I’m trying to figure out whether it’s a landscape question or a building
question.
Board Member Maran: It’s probably an architectural question simply because that
controls the shadows and the site planning, and the site planning, if it was on the
Sheridan side of the building you could control it better, but you’re sort of in an
alleyway between the existing apartment house. So my thought was if the VTA site
isn’t going to be developed as a larger structure, then probably the best place to get
useful, comfortable, well-lit landscaping would be south of the existing Silverwood
condominiums, but that’s where you made the widest part of the building so you’ve
lost the opportunity to do that there.
Mr. McDevitt: Well we’ve made the building separation from the property line widest
there because of a series of meetings we’ve been through and the sensitivity to that
existing neighbor in providing as much light and air to that building, thus not affecting
that building.
Mr. Reich: I’d also like to add that the VTA site is anticipated at some point to be
developed. It is identified as a housing inventory site, so we do anticipate at some
time there’ll be high-density housing on that location.
Board Member Maran: I see. So on the landscape plan you’re not planning high
trees are you in that area? Mostly low? Deciduous maybe?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
Mr. McDevitt: The species Linda can speak to, but the boxes will be big enough on
top of the deck that they could accommodate 48-inch easily. With that, why don’t
you tell us about the species.
4 Ms. Gates: The neighbors raised the same concern that you did. What our thinking
5 is, is that we have trees that are in the smaller to medium size so there’s buffer
6 ¯ between the two without additional decrease in the light. So we’re thinking of that,
7 and the lighter versus the heavier kinds of trees.
8 Board Member Komber~q: My last question is really about the architecture. Is there
9 any way that you can get light to the inside of the building, and I’m mainly thinking of
10 the corridors. It feels like sort of a long hotel corridor and it’d be so nice if you could
11 get light in there.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. McDevitt: Let me talk about one key area. You can see on the elevation as well,
right there, but at the second floor, this two-story space, the foyer is really the lower
roof and then you go into a large volume. The outside edge of that large volume at
the second floor is all glazed, so that’ll flood that space which will penetrate quite a
bit into the corridors, at least relieve the length on the second floor. The third floor,
we’ve relieved the thickness of the building with the terrace which goes all the way
back to the corridor, which does essentially the same thing. And the fourth floor
does that in addition to providing skylights in these nodes here, here, and here. So I
think we’ve handled the natural lighting issue pretty well for a building that’s long like
this.
22 Board Member Kornberq: Yeah, I was thinking more in the third and second floors,
23 whether there is any way, instead of having a unit right at the end of the corridor,
24 opening that up outside and having a nice little seating area at the ends of the
25 building so that people could sit outside there rather than - I just think at both ends
26 that would be really nice.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mr. McDevitt: Especially for the third floor, for residents with Alzheimer’s, we tend
not to do that - and for seniors who are getting very high in age, the glare issue,
walking down a corridor and seeing that flood of light. You and I might love that, but
it becomes a problem, and so we generally try not to do that. We’ll bring light in from
the side but never right at the end. That’s possible, but it would be at the expense of
rentable space and right now the building is 81 units on a very expensive piece of
property, and I think we’re making it work.
Board Member Kornber.q: And one other question. As far as the exterior windows,
can you make the windows any bigger for the units themselves?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. Right now we’re proposing Anderson windows. The upper
floors, we either use Anderson 200 series, which is okay. The 400 series is much
better, they’re structurally more rigid. We could probably do that. There’s a cost
associated with it, but they can span the greater distances. We are using the bigger
windows on the first floor.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Board Member Kornber,q: I was just thinking of the second and third. Seems that’s
all they’ve got. Okay, thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Starting with the general questions, have you
considered other architectural forms and what would they be?
Mr. McDevitt: In terms of the site plan?
Board Member Maran: No in terms of the building’s architecture.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes we have. Depending on where the buildings occur - we’ve done
buildings for Sunrise in British Colombia, Washington, southern California, even
parts of northern California where there’s a prevalence of a character of California
stucco in San Mateo or Sunnyvale. Didn’t seem right here. There’s no reason to try
to emulate that building across the street. That’s one idea to knock off. In terms of a
very contemporary or expressive building that says concrete and all glass, it’s not
appropriate for the client and the seniors who expect much more of a traditional
home setting. What we’re trying to do is bridge that with a slightly more
contemporary version of what might be a craftsman-inspired building. It’s a tough
balance, but we don’t want to go either too modern because it won’t fly, and if it’s
borrowed from somewhere on the East Coast where you see very eclectic Victorian
buildings, that wouldn’t be appropriate here in Palo Alto. We wouldn’t feel
comfortable bringing it to you.
Board Member Maran: When you say modern is not appropriate, or contemporary is
not appropriate for the clientele, are you talking about the seniors? Are you saying
that they’re more accustomed to the traditional forms?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, there’s an expectation with Sunrise that these buildings be very
homelike, and unfortunately or fortunately they’re very quick to jump to use the term
"institutional - I don’t want to live there." And so there’s a lot of history with this
client, and there’s a lot of marketing that goes into how their buildings perform. And
some of those - that for good reasons or bad, push it too far - don’t perform.
Board Member Maran: On the elevation and the section through the elevation, that
roof fagade, isn’t it essentially a fagade so you have a flat roof with all the equipment
on top and then the external perimeter that takes on the shape of a hip roof, is that
right?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, it’s a building that’s expressed with hip roofs and sheds which
have four stories if the roofs are long enough and not short and steep which smacks
of retail, mansard. But if they’re long enough, say 14-15 feet is a slope and we can
vary the eave heights occasionally, and the return goes back to where these forms
close and don’t become hips with flat tops too much unless they’re long runs. We
felt comfortable presenting a roof with mansard detailing. Now the building is very
thick, we’re working with a restricted height, so something had to give. And in
conjunction with that kind of roof form we were able to recess all the mechanical
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
equipment so that it’s buffered and not perhaps being as noisy if it was sitting on
some kind of exposed platform.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Are these units for sale, or are they rented?
4 Mr. McDevitt: They’re rented month to month.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Board Member Maran: Was a mixed-use project ever considered for this site?
Mr. McDevitt: I can’t comment on that.
Mr. Zemanek: We had discussions about that early on when we started about the
possibility of mixed use here. It never progressed real far because number one, in
order for us to really get the ambiance of the building and to make the building work
for the residents that we have and to be able to utilize the first floor sPace, especially
for things like the dining areas, it just never seemed to come together; plus the fact
we needed the FAR for our own needs, our own residential needs. So we tried to
create something that would give a streetscape and give some activity coming off
the building to allow for that without doing a retail component.
Board Member Maran: Did you consider not having underground parking versus
having it? In other words, have you looked at both options?
17 Mr. Zemanek: We looked at both options, but on a site like that it would be
18 impossible to build our building and have the parking on the top, on the surface. We
19 just wouldn’t have room for it.
20 Board Member Maran: Is that to say there wouldn’t be enough value created from
21 the reduced number of units to justify the project?
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Mr. Zemanek: Absolutely, right.
Board Member Maran: Where do you think the people who live here are going to go
shopping, or do they shop?
Mr. Zemanek: Well that’s a great question. Keep in mind the residents are 83-84
years old. They’re probably here because there’s been a family intervention that has
put them there. Morn or dad can’t drive, morn or dad can’t cook anymore, mom or
dad need assistance with activities of daily living. They may have severe
osteoarthritis and need help even buttoning a shirt or a blouse. Again, our residents
aren’t ill, but they are frail and in various degrees of frailty. So what happens
typically is when they go on an outing or a little junket, they will get into the Sunrise
van and they will be taken somewhere to go shopping. They just don’t leave our
home and take a hike and go shopping.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Just a couple more questions. Is Sunrise
Development Inc. different than Sunrise Senior Living?
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Mr. Zemanek: No. Sunrise Development Inc.’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunrise
Senior Living. There’s about 30.000+ employees in Sunrise, there’s about 25 of us
who are involved in the development and operation.
Board Member Maran: Who’s driving the LEED rating and the checklist? Who shall I
ask questions of on that one?
Mr. McDevitt: I will stand in today, but my office is certainly driving this, and we’ve
been a proponent of it, and I think it’s a good opportunity for Sunrise who hasn’t
done this yet.
Board Member Maran: Have you had any experience, or has your office had any
projects that have been certified?
Mr. McDevitt: Oh, yes. We have 38 certified professionals in the office, and we’ve
had several buildings in the gold category. We’re working on complete urban design
projects in areas of Portland where the intention is that every product within a seven-
acre site be certified, or silver I should say.
Board Member Maran: In addition to having certified professionals within your firm,
there’ve also been projects that you’ve done that were LEED certified.
Mr. McDevitt: On a regular basis, we probably have about 4 or 5 per year. I can
demonstrate what they are, bring them in.
Board Member Maran: That’s okay; I can look on your Web site. What are the other
considerations for this project? I noticed the LEED checklist you gave us which is
great scores it seems like a tentative 27 points. Are there any other areas that have
been considered, or let me ask this: Would you consider bringing us next time a
LEED checklist consideration to allow us to get some insight into the process that
brought you to these 27 points.
.qm: Absolutely. I have an important series of meetings that I have to have with Dan
as to how committed Sunrise wants to be for example, using green power, which
carries a cost. There’s just a lot of opportunities that we can explore with this. It’ll all
boil down to ’~/Ve probably shouldn’t do this; we will do this." In terms of separating
the water, probably not. Unless you’re doing a large CCRC, a standalone assisted
living like this presents difficulties. There’s a lot of real practical reasons and there’s
cost tradeoffs, and well come up with a more accurate proposal.
Board Member Maran: Have you talked to the City, especially the utilities
department in Palo Alto yet and/or anybody else in the City regarding the energy and
LEED program?
Mr. McDevitt: I have not, no. But we’re receptive to it.
Board Member Maran: Would you be open to it?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And I understand there’s a consultant that the City of Palo Alto
may be working with - Herbsworks, is that that group that they’ve hired? We worked
with them quite a bit up in the Northwest on certified projects and silver projects.
Board Member Maran: Are you referring to the utility department sponsored
consulting that the City provides?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: I thought that was Charles Ely.
Ms. Amy French, Manager of Current Planning: Herbsworks has been hired by the
zoning ordinance update team as we looked at the green building changes to the
ordinance.
Board Member Maran: Great. So when we see it the next time, would it include for
example a presentation of whether solar power was considered for that big flat roof
and if so, why it was not accepted or adopted.
Mr. McDevitt: Why don’t we make that an agenda item.
Board Member Maran: Okay, I’m open to that. And just an example of other LEED
points, do you have any LEED-certified people from your firm working on this
project?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Would you be receptive or willing to bring any other
architectural concepts that you’ve been through on this project to the next
presentation so that we can get a look at how the design evolved, or what other
possibilities you considered?
Mr. McDevitt: In terms of this particular site plan, how we might change the
character?
Board Member Maran: I’m going back to the earlier discussion of the architecture
and the styling and all that.
Mr. McDevitt: Nothing’s as developed as this. But we could talk about big ideas.
Board Member Maran: Even napkin sketches, anything that gives us a sense as to
how you got to this particular one. Let me ask you, what do you consider to be - if
there is one - a Palo Alto style? How would you describe whal fits here?
Mr. McDevitt: I don’t see as much a Palo Alto style. There are a lot of very
contemporary buildings for high tech and office market, in some cases medical like
we just saw. I don’t know that there’s ever going to be a lot of the great big bold
projects like - what’s Larry Ellison’s firm again - those "look at me" kind of projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Maybe that’s not appropriate either. But this was intentionally not one of those, but
more background, more residential. Seems like within residential neighborhoods,
too provocative is not good. Those are parameters we were banging around within.
Board Member Maran: Okay, thank you. Those are all the questions I have.
Anybody else?
Okay. Remembering that this is a preliminary review and that we’re not going to
make a motion on this, we’ll move to the public. Is there anybody from the public
who would like to speak to this? Can you fill out a card when you’re done speaking.
Thanks.
Mr. Roger Smith: My name’s Roger Smith, and I’m a neighbor at 425 Grant. And as
you well know, there is shopping nearby at Molly Stone’s on California Avenue,
which is sort of a forgotten shopping area here in the City. Also, the bus and train -
every worker here can get to this place without ever driving a car, which is very
exciting to me. I’m 62 years old, and there’s an 8-10 year waiting list at Channing
House, so hopefully I don’t get Alzheimer’s before you guys get this thing built.
But more importantly, my mother is at The Forum out on 280 by Merry Knoll there,
and Sunrise runs that place, and they do a very good job, and I think each of you
would be happy to have both of your parents in one of their facilities. And in
fairness, that’s going to affect a lot of us "sandwich" people, so we’re going to need a
place for our parents, so I would encourage you to deal with these very professional
people and give this as a service to Palo Alto. Thank you for letting me talk.
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Would you fill out a card, please. Anybody else
from the public wish to speak to this matter? Seeing none, we’ll return to the Board
for comment. Did we start with you, Dave, or was it Susan first? I think it’s you,
Susan. You go first.
Board Member Eschweiler: Well, I think this is a great type of project for Palo Alto.
is something we need, and I have some relatives that in the near future Could
potentially make use of such a facility. I think it’s something that the community is
lacking, so the type of project is great.
It
30 I have some concerns about the parking issue. Reading through the Planning
31 Commission notes and things, it seems that it has been discussed, but I think it
32 would be helpful in the future to have some more clarification on why you feel 40,
33 which is a very low number, is the appropriate number for this 81-unit facility. And
34 some of that is because people aren’t driving. But understanding what the employee
35 flow is and how many people would be visiting and how that would work, I think that
36 would be helpful to the flow of understanding the project.
37
38
39
40
Architecturally, it’s quite a massive project and that was one of the reasons I was
asking about the context. I think it would be helpful in the future to see this in
context with its neighborhood because it feels really tall, it feels very extruded up
from the ground. The floor plates pretty well stack. There is some articulation,
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
you’ve got the tower and you’ve got a couple of balconies. I’d like to see you even
take it further, if there can be some additional articulation and some balconies.
I’m quite concerned about the elevation facing El Camino because that’s the one
that more people will see than any of the other elevations. It looks like an end right
now, not like a front. And it is a front to this major passageway for thousands of
people every day.
So looking at some things, where you talked about the articulation of the dining
room, that first floor level, maybe that could be enhanced so that at the pedestrian
level you see more understanding of what’s behind that so it looks different from the
upper floors, have that face look less like an end and more like a face to the
community.
It’s kind of a nice idea having a pocket park, but I’m not quite sure how it works with
the grasscrete pavers and really, if delivery trucks are pulling into that, essentially it’s
an alley.
Mr. McDevitt: For fire; It’s only for emergency vehicles.
Board Member Eschweiler: But the service entrances...
Mr. McDevitt: There are bollards that block that access at the sidewalk.
Mr. Reich: Service depot access, with hand trucks along the pathway.
Mr. McDevitt: Right. Only the fire department removes those bollards.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay.
Mr. McDevitt: Can I ask a question about the...
Board Member Maran: We need to keep this just to comments for now, and then
we’ll have another review, or you can ask questions afterwards. We’re pressed for
time.
Board Member Eschweiler: I think that’s all the comments I have right now.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, Susan. David.
Board Member Solnick: The biggest problem I have with the architecture is not the
style so much as the uniformity of height. It’s a common problem with heights and
with setbacks that people design emphatically to them and create either long side
sides or uniform tops in this case. I think that’s what’s giving it its bigness and it’s
monolithic quality. I actually would suggest going even higher, perhaps towards El
Camino, but then very definitely going lower in other parts of the project. An
example of that in your own description was the tower at the corner. A tower by any
definition that I know of, is taller than what’s around it. And this tower is not taller
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
than what’s around it. It’s the same height. So I don’t think it’s a tower, it’s just a
projection. And by the same token the bays are actually competing with that
because they’re also the same height as the "tower." And you’ve stuck to the hip
roofs, perhaps to try and keep the height down, because you don’t have any gable
ends and so on, but I think to do that so uniformly is actually counterproductive
because adding a few feet from some other roof element is far more advantageous
than it is disadvantageous in increasing the height in a small part of the building.
And obviously E! Camino is a street that can handle height. So that’s one set of
comments.
I’m not convinced about the public benefit. It sounds like you have done some
things off site, but I’m not seeing any realistic public benefit here in the architecture
of the site planning, and that’s a very sensitive issue in Palo Alto, and I think it
maybe should be more overt than at least what I’m seeing here.
The porch - I can appreciate why it’s where it is architecturally, but it’s a very noisy
street. I understand the dilemma - you don’t want to turn a negative face onto El
Camino, but on the other hand it’s a very noisy street and I don’t quite know what the
answer is, but I think you’re not going to get a lot of people going out onto that
c~ ~er porch because it’s very noisy.
Sun - I have some experience with senior housing, not assisted living, but just
regular housing - and I know that sun is a big issue, actually having too much sun. I
know us younger architects like to have more and more light and I’m certainly one of
those, but I think in senior projects, as you mentioned, to some extent it’s the
opposite. So what you end up with is all the blinds are closed you have all these
nice big windows and all the blinds are closed. And you’ve got a long western
exposure which you can’t really do anything about with this site, but I think that’s
going to be a problem and you might consider that in the typeof windows you use,
whether it’s Iow-E - there are features that can be added to the outside to help with
western sun, low-lying sun, to help that coming into the units and I think you’ve got a
big problem there actually. You’re going to spend a lot of money on all these
windows, and all the blinds are going to be closed.
I mentioned this - I’m not keen on the shed dormers. I think they’re really not in
keeping with the rest of the building. The base veneer - this is an ongoing topic
today - the base veneer is too low I believe in this. It’s not in proportion to the rest
of the building. That’s a detail that may not apply to a different design. I think that’s
all my comments.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Ken.
Board Member Kornber,q: It’s a great project. I think I want to see whatever we can
do to help it. And I think we need it and want to make sure that the comments we
make are considered constructive. My own comments are that I’m just worried
about the light. I know too much light can be bad, but at least if you have the ability
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to control it you can control whether it’s too much or not. So I still think getting more
natural light to the interior quarters would make them less scary.
I urge staff to look at that lane along El Camino. I just don’t think of that as a large
truck service lane. And I know when you come around from Morgan Expressway
and turn right there, if there’s no bus, you use it whether it’s to avoid being passed or
passing, or just [incoherent]. Maybe something can be done as far as islands in that
lane or somehow make it clear that that’s a service lane because it certainly isn’t
obvious how you would do it.
I think the idea of some retail downstairs would animate it in a way that the City I
think wants El Camino to be. Otherwise, that is going to be a very dead area. And
when they talk about animation, I think they mean liveliness with people, activity-
not just architectural elevation. So if there was some way to make that frontage
something that was retail, I think it would benefit the people in the building and also it
may give you revenue that makes it not as bad as losing some square footage or
maybe a couple units. I don’t know the economics of it well enough.
The architecture isn’t inspirational or innovative or exciting. Maybe that’s something
that seniors can’t handle, but I don’t believe it. I think you could do things that are
more fun - just a comment.
But unfortunately Palo Alto doesn’t accept a project like this as public benefit in itself.
I think it is. I applaud your efforts to try to provide extra public benefit for the PC.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. I agree with Ken. I’d like to commend you for doing
this project and for paying so much attention to issues such as neighborhood
pedestrians and the landscaping and how the neighborhood can benefit from this
project in the way it’s placed on the site. That’s all really thoughtful. I also want to
commend the underground parking. I know that’s an expensive proposition, and I
also know that it contributes to reducing the congestion on the streets and that’s a
good thing. It also seems that the entrances to the project from the street have been
well thought out.
29 I also agree with Ken in terms of overall architectural style. I’m sure we’ll learn a lot
30 more when we get a lot more details. I’m less inspired by this architecture, but
31 perhaps we’ll understand it better when it comes back in greater detail. It seems
32 strangely familiar to me to the building next door, and I know that you’ve mentioned
33 that you wanted to differentiate and not try to draw a direct relationship to the
34 building next door. But the one next door has individually roofed turrets. I’d
35 especially like to see where there were other possibilities considered. Asl said, I’d
36 really like to see the development of the design and other thoughts that were tossed
37 around. It would be very interesting to see that. I know quite a few seniors who are
38 really bored with old schmaltzy architecture or going to hotels, or even senior care
39 centers that have been developed with some traditional eye or some sort of
40 retrospective look at architecture. I’ve personally run into people who have said
41 they’d like to see something innovative or more forward. I’m not the expert on the
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
market and that’s clearly your area. But it’d be interesting to see what other
thoughts were considered.
On the green building and sustainability issues, I commend you for bringing this
forward; it’s a great starting point and it’s much appreciated that this has now
become sort of a standard attachment for a project in Palo Alto, especially one of
this size that can have so much impact. So just as in the other projects, we’d like to
see in what ways we can use this as a model for other projects that follow you and
especially in that industry where there’s been so little attention paid to green building
in particular, and I’m talking about senior care centers, assisted living. I’m familiar
with some developers of those projects and they know less about green building
than most people I run into in the building world.
It’d be really interesting to see what kind of partnerships could be drawn between the
utility department of the City and this project, as well as any other consultants or
support that the project can get from the City. It’s a city that’s devoted to green
building and sustainability, and we’d like to jump in and help on that score.
This is preliminary, so there are no motions and we’re going to wrap it up on this
project. Anybody else have any comments before we do? Okay. Thank you very
much for bringing this forward. We look forward to seeing you again.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Attachment E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Board Members Present:
Drew Maran (chair)
Judith Wasserman
Kenneth Kornberg
Susan Eschweiler
David Solnick
2701 El Camino Real [03-PC-02] [03-ARB-05[ [03-EIA-15]: Request by Sunrise
Development Inc. on behalf of Morris Page Mill LLC for a planned community zone
change for an 82,390 square-foot senior assisted living facility with one level of
underground parking and associated site improvements.
Board Member Drew Maran: At this point, we’ll have oral communications. Any.
members of the public who have anything to say to any item not on the agenda today?
Would you speak at the microphone and then when you’re done, would you please fill
out a card give it to Alicia.
Mr. Shahriar Rabii: Hi; my name is Shahriar Rabii. 1 live at the Silverwood condominium
complex next door to where the Sunrise project is going to go up.
Board Member Maran: Can I ask you please - are you going to speak to the Sunrise
project?
Mr. Rabii: Actually, 1 need to go to work, so I’m only going to take about 30 seconds of
your time and leave, so ! apologize for speaking at this time. But basically, my concerns
and those of many other residents are Sunrise is too big, too many units, and it’s too tall
next to Silverwood, so it’s going to block sunlight from a series of units there. And my
friends from Sunrise will argue that 81 units is the absolute bare minimum they can
handle. I beg to differ and I ask you to consider our concerns about the number of units
and the height adjacent to Silverwood. Thank you very much.
Board Member Maran: This is a major public hearing for 2701 El Camino Real [03-PC-
02] [03-ARB-05[ [03-EIA-15]: Request by Sunrise Developmept Inc. on behalf of Morris
Page Mill LLC for a planned community zone change for an 82,390 square-foot senior
assisted living facility with one level of undergroundp.,,^"-"--~,,, ,u ^’"=,,u =o~,,=~=~^~^"^’^’^" site
improvements.
Can we get a presentation by staff on this, please.
Mr. Russ Reich. Associate Planner: Good morning, Chair Maran and Board members.
The application before you for a new four-story, 81-unit assisted living facility was
Cio, of Palo Alto ~age 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
previously reviewed by the Board on December 18, 2003. This was an initial review to
provide the applicsnt feedback on the project prior to formal review by the Board. At the
December 18 hearing the Board provided the following comments to the applicant:
¯It was recommended that additional articulation of the fourth floor should be
considered. It was suggested that the El Camino face of the building should look
less like an end of the building.
¯Alternative treatment of the tower elements should be considered so they read
more like a tower and less like a projection.
¯The large shed dormers should be reconsidered
¯The style and materials should be reconsidered to better relate to El Camino
¯Alternative and efficient energy sources such as solar power should be
considered.
The applicant has revised the proposed project to address these concerns:
¯Sections of the fourth floor have been recessed to achieve greater articulation of
the building
¯The El Camino Real face ofthe building has been altered to reduce the
impression that this is the side of the building
¯The roof has been altered to give greater definition to the tower elements
¯The large shed dormers have been removed
¯The style and materials of the building ha,-.’e been changed to better relate to the
urban nature of El Camino Real.
¯Other changes include moving the fire lane from El Camino Real to the Sheridan
Street frontage, and they have increased the amount of parking from 40 to 44
spaces.
The applicant is here to make a brief ten-minute presentation and answer any questions
that you may have.
Board Member Maran: Would the applicant like to make the presentation. We have ten
minutes because it’s a major presentation.
Sunrise Development Representative: Thank you very much Board members, Mr.
Chairman. I want to thank you all for taking the time to meet with us since the last
Board meeting, it was very impressive that you could put your schedules together to do
this since Gerry only had a couple of days in town and we got around to see each of
you on a one-to-one basis to discuss suggestions, and hopefully we’ve incorporated
many of the changes that we’ve discussed into today’s presentation. And we want to
thank staff as well, helping us along.
We have been journeying through this particular process for well over a year, and we
would like to make a request of you this morning. If after our presentation you feel
comfortable that we are on the right track, we would ask you for an approval this
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
morning, with conditions as necessary, so we can move onto the next phase with the
Planning and Transportation Commission on March 10.
37
38
39
40
On Tuesday I hand delivered some supplemental materials and I take it that everybody
has received those in a packet.
The design direction that we’re now taking represents a bit of a stretch for Sunrise. We
have attempted to combine the comfortable architectural style we and our residents
have been accustomed to with a little more bolder approach based upon the input that
we have received from you and from staff and from the community. We’re excited
about this, and we now trust that we will be more in keeping with the design style
direction that Palo Alto is pursuing.
Lastly, we’re very excited about pursuing a LEED certification. We ask your patience as
we move through this process. We must make sure that we are going with LEED
certification that wil! be financially compatible with our final budgets. We are new to this,
even though we have an architectural firm that has about 38 certified LEEDs people on
it. This for Palo Alto Sunrise will be really a pioneering effort within our company..And
again, we please ask your patience. We are going to attempt as much as possible to
get to 26 to be LEED certified, and if we fall short, it isn’t going to be for lack of trying I
promise you that.
We’d like to direct our presentation this morning to answering concerns. These are
basically the specific comments that we want to address this morning. And there are
approximately eleven bullet points here, and these have been the bullet points that were
brought up at the last ARB meeting that we had in December. What I’d like to do at this
time is to have Gerry McDevitt from Mathoon go through each of these go show you
how we’ve addressed them. We also have Linda Gates here from David Gates and
Associates, the landscape architect, who can answer questions about our softscapes
and hardscapes, and we can do this after Gerry has finished, any way you’re most
comfortable. If you would like Linda to make a presentation on that or you would like to
do it as a question and answer. So l’d like to introduce Gerry at this time, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Gerald McDevitt. Architect. Mathoon: Good morning. We’re pleased to present the
revised design from our previous December !8 meeting. I do have a question, whether
you’d want me to go through all the boards in sequence, or whether you want to go
through some of the packet material that you have in front of you and ask specific
questions. I’m going to assume we have five minutes for me and five minutes for Linda.
Board Member Maran: Yeah, you have five minutes for the prese.ntation left. We’ll have
plenty of questions, so why don’t you proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay. Answering question-number one - the context needs to be
provided regarding height. We see the corner of El Camino Real where it’s very difficult
to see much context except for the Silverwood apartments to the north of the site along
Sheridan, three stories, fairly tall stories, l’m assuming at least nine feet clear floor to
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 3
1 floor. One thing you should note is that the overall ridge height of the building is 39-1/2’
2 as compared to the Sunrise building at 44’8". You can see that the contrast with the
3 existing Silverwood and the adjacent property at the corner is a full story, plus the tall
4 floor-to-floors of the Silverwood. And across the street of course, 411 Sheridan, which
5 is a full four stories above a podium parking deck.
6
8
9
Now, I have a small packet that I’ve distributed. Hopefully that’ll make it easier to see
some of the numbers on here. You can see the overall height comparison of the
proposed Sunrise building and the Siiverwood on the left in that small section. And
more detail in terms of floor-to-floor elevations are shown here on this drawing.
10 In the packet you can see some modeling that we’ve done to help articulate what our
11 intent is for the building design. Note that massing is increased toward El Camino Real
12 and steps down toward the Silverwood apartments. We are four stories and a corner
13 tower emphasizing the El Camino Real at Sheridan and then purposely step down .to
14 three stories, and then two stories at the Silverwood condominiums. I think you can
15 start to see how the building steps into Silverwood beyond.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Back to the question - uniformity of height is a problem and is counterproductive to
flatten the roof. I go back to emphasize and summarize. Really, the height of the
building steps down three stories toward the Silverwood apartments. You can see the
corner tower at three stories from the four-story mass. And then as we rotate around in
the 3-D modeling you can start to see this in more detail where we really have stepped
the building down to two stories as it’s closest to the Silverwood.
l’m going to go ahead and assume i’ve answered the question number three.
23 Question number four- adding more balconies, more articulation. We have stepped
24 the building at the fourth floor to represent small balconies that occur on both sides of
25 the projecting bays as well as by the corner towers. And we’ve wrapped that around as
26 it goes into the auto court. Also we have small plant balconies. You can see this part of
27 the building is stepped back, and the small balconies are curved back to the back wall in
28 this zone.
29 What our intent has been is certainly to emphasize the top floor as penthouse, the lower
30 floors as a three-story building. And I think in the modeling it becomes pretty distinctive
31 when you look down on it.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Board Member Maran: That was ten minutes for the presentation. Why don’t you wrap
it up and then we’ll have a bunch of questions for you.
Mr. McDevitt: To answer the question ,eua, d~nu the corner tower. We felt that the tower
is not really a free-standing element and it was purposely engaged as an articulated bay
to really highlight those important corners of the building.
A comment about base veneer. We can comment on that with larger drawings, and l’d
like to answer questions about that. We did raise it up; we also have deep-set windows
at the lower floor and more masonry at the lower floor.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The long western exposure as being problematic - with further emphasis on detail and
articulation, broad roof overhangs in the fourth floor and the horizontal projections that
occur at the parapets at the third floor, I think we’ve answered that. We fully intend to
use Iow-e glazing throughout the building.
5 Dan mentioned the LEED checklist to be provided. We’ve analyzed the options with
6 Sunrise, gone over it carefully, and have come up with a proposed LEED program that
7 we have copies for your review. These represent the most meaningful and economical
8 approach toward attaining the LEED certification.
I do want to answer questions regarding increased amount of natural light into the floor
plans, and Ill do that during the question and answer period. And the color and
materials board will review that in detail during the question and answer period.
Hopefully we have a little bit of time for Linda to walk you through the landscape, which
is a very essential part of this program.
Board Member Maran: Can we make this a one-minute presentation, then we’ll have
questions for that also.
Ms. Linda Gates, Architect: Sure. I’m going to go to the boards, because if I only have
one minute... The overall plan is similar to what we saw last time. I think the most
distinctive changes are that the fire access has moved to the side of the building and
that allowed us to bring the vegetable garden, some of the private spaces, out further.
And there was this concern about sun, and so we’ve been able to pu!l them forward into
sunnier parts of the site.
We’ve modified some of our thoughts on site furnishings and such to catch a little bit
more contemporary feeling, not quite the New England kind of feeling that we were
originally looking at.
The Sheridan access, we’re trying to do where the fire access crosses, but you can
enjoy these private spaces without feeling like you’re in the middle of a fire access. So
it’s set up, you have a bench, we see raised pots here with citrus trees, a focal element
such as more contemporary looking birdbath here so that these pocket parks, it wouldn’t
be obvious that there’s a fire access going across.
That’s my one minute.
Board Member Maran: Why don’t we move to questions and start with David.
Board Member David Solnick: Can you go over some of the reasons for the changes
between alternative B and alternative A, or just the specific changes between the two.
Mr. McDevitt: This would be a question regarding deletion of the porch, inclusion of the
awning?
City of Palo Alto t)age 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
35
36
37
38
Board Member Solnick: No, I don’t think it included deletion of the porch. It’s just the
changes in that we got something a couple of days ago labeled altemate B.
Mr. McDevitt: Well, alternate B is a refinement of what we were developing. And what
you got initially as A still had a trellis element attached to the corner tower. We felt that
was not necessary, and we really emphasized the use of awnings as a continuity item
for this whole common area that fronts El Camino Real common spaces such as the
private dining, and wraps around the front of the building as it comes in toward the entry
toward the auto court. So what you see on the El Camino Real side is awnings, and
then they terminate here as the building turns back in. Does that answer your question?
We don’t have the trellis feature there anymore which was the difference.
The other item that might have been referred to is how we dealt with the roof at the
corner tower element themselves. We simplified that to be a modified hip solution as
opposed to that much more articulated roof form.
Board Member Solnick: Was there a rationale for that in particular?
Mr. McDevitt: The roof that was shown on alternate A was something that was
appearing a little too contemporary. Our client preferred that we would use a roof that
was more familiar. So what we’ve done is modify the shape of that roof, brought it down
a bit and better integrated it to the whole roof expression of the building.
Board Member Sotnick: And there’s similar forms, one on the left, on the north side. if
you’re on Sheridan it’s on your left. And then there’s one on the back as well, a similar
form. Would you say something about those.
Mr. McDevitt: Would this be the brow that occurs at the parapets?
Board Member Solnick: Where you’ve used the standing seam metal roof in two other
places, one that you’re pointing and then one on the backside.
Mr. McDevitt: For each of the corner towers as well as the tower at the rear of the
building where we step from four to three, we have a standing seam metal roof, which is
really a turning color roof of this color as a contrast to the overall roof. We also use that
same roof at the entry porch within the entry court. And that’s the extent of the metal
roof. Otherwise the roof is all the laminate shingle. Now I have a sample also of the
metal siding that is not true to color. It’s simply a painted texture to indicate what that
metal siding is. In this case it’s a vertical application. I’m assuming that the drawings in
A were horizontal where we used metal siding. We can debate that if you like.
÷ "it just -Board M..mb~, Solnick: Was ÷~,~" a reason for "÷,- " ,,swk,,h~n~ ,h~ direction, or was
Let’s try something else?
Mr. McDevitt: There was some concern that the metal siding and the horizontal painted
siding, the Hardy material, might be too similar. And by changing color, that was one
way of achieving more of a contrast. The other was to change the direction of the siding
to be vertical. So where the emphasis on most of the building is horizontal, for the top
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
floor and for the projecting bays down to the masonry base, that’s where we’ve used the
vertical direction. We feel it’s successful either way. Quite frankly we had it either way,
but at this point there seems to be more consensus in the team and the client feels
better that it’s vertical.
Board Member Solnick: Do you have any samples of the horizontal siding or any more
detail on it?
Mr. McDevitt: No, other than the fact that it’s a James Hardy siding that has about a 5-
1/2" face expression. It’s tapered, lapped, very traditional looking. Now I will
emphasize the difference between that siding which we call the field siding. You can
look at the drawings and probably see it a little better in that large elevation. That’s with
windows that are light colored and that light trim wrap, as contrasted to the metal siding
which has an integral color that matches the siding for all of the edge pieces as well as
the window frame. We might pop the window frame a little lighter. But the windows in
the metal siding are much larger and withoul as much division articulation. And the
windows are dark so you see the contrast with light windows and dark windows in those
two parts of the fagade. Where the siding is light the windows are dark, and where the
siding is light the windows are much larger.
Board Member Solnick: So in some cases you’re emphasizing the horizontal character
and then in other places you switch to emphasizing the vertical character.
Mr. McDevitt: We felt it was very important to emphasize the horizontal for the overall
building composition and really break that roof height as much as we can, either by
literally stepping it and then by introducing these horizontal setbacks at the fourth floor.
And the detail of the parapet is such that there is a short parapet with a railing on it and
then an 18" or two-foot projection that further emphasizes that iinearity at those
particular parapets. And then we changed the siding because that’s a very fine texture
and it didn’t seem to interfere with the horizontal intent.
Board Member Solnick: On the El Camino elevation, 1 didn’t have the previous version.
The projections there, they show very deep ~n your rendering, but they’re not really.
They look they’re maybe two feet. Do you know how deep they are, and how you
decided on those?
Mr. McDevitt: Would these be the actual awning projections?
Board Member Solnick: No, on the drawing below that, those two blocks that pop out
from the face.
Mr. McDevi~: The shadow is too big. That’s really only a two-foot~,roje~.,~o," " "-*" "-,.
Board Member Solnick: And how did you come up with that projection? Was that there
before?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes it was. in terms of really making that effort toward achieving more of
another fagade and not what appears to be a building end, we did lengthen the building
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 7
1 along El Camino Real. When we moved the porch out we pulled the face of the building
2 out to its place as would match the face of the porch. We’ve actually made the lower
3 floor larger and moved some of the units from up above down to the lower floor and
4 then we’ve cut away some of the area at the fourth floor to balance out the gross area.
5 So we feel that the two bays and the added length and the continuity items like the big
6 windows, the awnings - there was more happening there and a more comfortable
7 fagade that is justified as a real important fagade along El Camino as opposed to what
8 was interpreted as the end. I thinking quieting down the bays, the roof of the bays, as a
9 hip roof that dovetails into the main roof- well without articulating it too much like we
10 did with the shed dormers was an improvement.
11
12
13
14
Board Member Solnick: That’s all my questions, thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks David. Susan.
Board Member Susan Eschweiler: Gerry, could you describe the Hardy panel again, I’m
not familiar with that.
15 Mr. McDevitt: It’s a fire-resistive cementitious material that paints well. So it is used
16 where a more traditional look is intended, like wood siding. But it’s a little bigger. We
17 use it with fairly robust trim details on buildings that would be three or four stories like
18 this scale. It’s a little coarse for buildings that are too small, but it does meet fire rating
19 concerns for type II FR.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Board Member Eschweiler: And what is the profile of that?
Mr. McDevitt: The actual pieces themselves are about 8" tall. They run in various
lengths. They’re assembled much like wood siding would be assembled on a sheathing
layer. They’re tapered slightly and there’s an intended overlap of about an inch and a
half.
Board Member Eschweiler: So it is a ship lapped kind of detail?
Mr. McDevitt: More just like-pure lap. Shiplap has a little rabbeted back on it. And then
the trim always has to be deeper to end it so it doesn’t let little triangles peek out.
That’s why the window trim is a similar material, 6"x3/4" or 514" depending on the detail.
Board Member Eschweiler: You were just describing, the windows are deep set on...
Mr. McDevitt: ...the main floor?
Board Member Eschweiler: ...the first floor but not on the upper floors, is that correct?
Mr. McDevitt: Let me correct that, because the areas where we are deep-setting the
windows are at the towers throughout the use of the masonry, in .this case the top of the
third floor, in this case the-second floor and the entire first floor. Now there’s some
variation along the length of that in terms of details. That’s fairly straightforward. The
walls are thick, the windows are set in. Where we get into the glazed porch beyond at
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
the face of the entry in here, we have two versions. To the right is glaze interior, to the
left is open. We have the rhythm of columns that is expressed all the way along. But
where it’s glazed the columns and the structure is proud and the window system is set
back, to the back of the columns so you really read that rhythm of columns and plints.
Now we know that there’s some little details that haven’t been asked yet, but I’m going
to head it off because I think Ken’s getting ready - would be what you see as the
masonry wider than the glass. We’re going to pull the masonry in tighter and there’ll be
a scribe-like detail that lets the windows slide by so that setback from the columns, the
window itself will probably be 2" from the column in horizontal distance and then set
back, and then it’ll cleanly go by the masonry.
Board Member Eschweiler: Could you describe what’s going on in the centerof the
building. Above the porch it goes up to the third story, maybe there’s a trellis there and
then some different parapet, not a sloped roof. It was different in A and B.
Mr. McDevitt: Just to further clarify what’s going on there. The porch element on the
first floor, here’s the face of the porch, here’s the open porch, glazed porch. Second
floor where you see an octagonal shape expressed out in front, that’s this top floor of
the two-story space. Upon entry there’s a large room with a stair and a two-story
volume. So it’s entirely clearstory windows. At the third floor where we have the
reminiscence suite for Alzheimers residents, you can see that terrace, the building form
steps back. And then we have a low wall at the edge of the terrace with a column
structure that supports a trellis overhead. And the windows aren’t really tight windows
as they would be in an interior condition, but they’re somewhat separate from the
structure.
Board Member Eschweiler: l’m sorry, you said this is at the third floor?
Mr. McDevitt: At the third floor. That’s what you see right here.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay, because on the drawing it looks like those windows
come out to the face of the octagon.
Mr. McDevitt: They do, but it’s not intended to be a weatherproof system. It’s open air
and the windows are there to provide an enclosure that’s very inviting and not at all bar-
like or cage-like.
Board Member Eschweiler: So this is like you see on some buildings, like a glass
windscreen in a way? There’s no roof to it.
Mr. IvlcDevitt: Right.
Board Member Eschweiler: But it looks like windows on the outside.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, to help bring that form up. And then it starts to disintegrate a little bit
as it gets to the third floor and become more open towards just the bones of the trellis
and the overhead trellis, and the windows are intended to be transparent.
City of Palo Alto t~age 9
1
2
Board Member Eschweiler: And the trellis actually goes over the whole octagon
platform?
3 Mr. McDevitt: It goes over the edge. it’s two feet, it’s single column supported. There’ll
4 be two-foot sections and then some horizontal members on top of that that wrap around
5.in the octagonal shape. And they really begin here, follow the wall, and end on the
6 other side.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Board Member Eschweiler: And then at the fourth floor the surface goes back, and then
it becomes a parapet?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. On the fourth floor that same profile is occurring. We just brought
the wall out a little bit so that the door assembly on the third floor is undercover by three
feet, and there are some large windows up there with some activity spaces on the other
side.
Board Member Eschweiler: And it’s just a straight parapet with a cap?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. Some question as to whether it should be just a parapet or a-
parapet with that little horizontal detail that dovetails into the eave line of the two sloped
roofs on both sides of it. If I may, while the plans are up, just take a moment to talk
about where we’ve introduced natural light into the floor plan. We’ve opened up the
building in this area so that that common area which is consistent throughout all floors
really can benefit more from that larger amount of gla~.ing as well as what we had on the
front and the back with through glazing.
Board Member Eschweiler: Do you have an elevation of that side that you’ve just
pointed to?
Mr. McDevitt: This side?
Board Member Eschweiler: Yes, because we’ve been mostly looking.at the other two
sides.
Mr. McDevitt: I do have it. it’s in your packet and unfortunately, it’s reduced, the side
face and the VTA lot.
Board Member Eschweiler: Are there any awnings on that side?
Mr. McDevitt: No. The east elevation is shown on the lower screen and the north
elevation is shown on the top. The same palette of materials is used. There’s a plane
here and then it steps back at this point back to give the rear property, area a much
greater setback from the existing Silverwood, and it steps back here in this area in plan
to really make that amenity area along El Camino Real much nicer. By that I mean
here’s the setback for the rear yard of Silverwood. Here’s the setback for the amenity
area along El Camino Real.
City of Palo Alto Page ] 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Board Member Eschweiler: While we’re looking at this elevation, the wind.ows just
above the letter E in East appear to be different from the others.
33
34
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, they do. What you’re looking at there is the elevator lobby. There’s
a pair of store doors that go out which is what you see in that zone right there. The
solid portion of course are the elevators. These are resident windows, these are
resident windows. And then all the way up in this zone, a typical plan would show a
smaller lobby with windows only.
Board Member Eschweiler: And you chose to do a different kind of windows at that
point, and was there particular thinking about that?
Mr. McDevitt: in my opinion there’s one too many horizontals in that assembly. I’d
rather simplify it. Each window unit should have one vertical, one horizontal, not two
horizontals.
Board Member Eschweiler: And then also, going to the right of the word East, there’s
what appears to be perhaps another elevator tower- keep going to the right, to the
right, to the right - and there’s a set of square windows above a door that’s recessed
down. Keep going to the right.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s a stair tower, and that stair exits the garage as well and that exits
about four feet below grade right there and then comes back up, outside.
Board Member Eschweiler: Why is it below grade?
Mr. McDevitt: It doesn’t have to be below grade. I think the next time you see these
drawings during documents I hope, you’ll see a short run over a horizontal passageway
outside with a long run above that so you can walk out level with the floor.
Board Member Eschweiler: Just to trying to understand - was it a grade issue that set it
four feet down?
Mr. McDevitt: No.
Board Member Eschweiler: It was just you having the floors coming out.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s a literal interpretation of how stairs work with mid-landings. We
have to modify that at the first floor. We have the ability to do that because we have a
big enough area for the stair enclosure to be lengthened so that we can open a door at
the first floor and walk straight out. And as you’re opening the door there’ll be a short
run of stairs so that there’s adequate head height. But we can make that work. There’s
no reason it has to stay like that.
Board Member Eschweiler: How would your adjustment that you’ve just been discussing
affect the windows above that?
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 11
1 Mr. McDevitt: They wouldn’t. Those windows are really occurring at the mid-landing
2 floors right here. So in order to avoid windows that are bisected by a structure we’ve
3 located the windows that are above the mid-landing rather than through the mid-landing.
4 And then the top floor of course, we can have a much larger window over the stairs.
5 And that stair goes to the roof, the other does not.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
Board Member Eschweiler: When you were looking at materials for this building, did you
consider any other options?
Mr. McDevitt: Actually we did. When we met last month between the 18th and today we
had a proposal that had two metal types. We had a flat metal panel that occurred at the
base and then the metal siding adjacent to the base. So these were flat panels. We
knew we weren’t going to afford Alucro Bond or Robertson type of system. We’re not
very happy with a lot of the other metal panels because they tend to oil-can and rake
sunlight. And we didn’t want to use a projecting battens kind of a solution. So we took
another look at it and said this is really becoming a fairly high level commercial detail for
this project, let’s simplify it. So we took the metal siding that was here and here that
was the rib siding horizontal and confined it to the top floor and tothe base which when
you look at the whole composition there’s quite a bit of that, and the whole top floor. We
felt it was okay to delete that one particular siding.
Board Member Eschweiler: Last month when you presented, what were the materials
that were used on the building at that point?
21 Mr. McDevitt: They were the same. They were Hardy material for the field siding.
22 There was just less of it. There was a flat metal panel here, here; and then there was
23 the ribbed siding here and here. It introduced a lot of complexity that we thought the
24 building didn’t need. And the main field siding became competitive with what the metal
25 siding was.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Board Member Eschweiler: And at any point did you consider stucco such as the
building across the street? I guess for the type T you can’t have the wood siding.
Mr. McDevitt: We did actually entertain stucco. And at the time the metal panels were
being proposed for the bays. One of the alternatives we had was stucco up here,
except that the metal panels and the tower which would have introduced a fourth
material. With the modulation and the height variation, l’m not sure that we really
needed four, so we reduced it.
Board Member Eschweiler: How did you come up with the brick as a new material?
Mr. McDevitt: Well as you recall from the December 18 presentation, we have the
masonry walls that occur close to the sidewalk that are a combination of low plins with
pre-cast caps and ironwork in between. That was stone, the corner towers were stone,
and the base of the building along the front was stone. We asked some questions at
the last meeting about what is a Palo Alto style, whether this was indigenous or not. I
had a hard time saying it was. I think it was a bit of a craftsman, I think I heard the word
"ski lodge" or something a little more rustic come up. And it was nc~t a solidly chosen
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
material. And in the spirit of trying to make the building appear a little cleaner, more
contemporary - just enough not too much - we went back to exploring brick because it’s
a little more tailored in its application. Another reason is unless we really use cut stone
laid up in a veneer pattern like brick, I don’t think anybody’s going to be happy with it.
Value engineering might get in the way of that. So if it became that applied thin stone, I
don’t think it would have been a successful solution. That’s the story of how stone
became brick..
Board Member Eschweiler: And with the brick, is there any particular pattern that you’re
proposing?
Mr. McDevitt: Well we’re using a flash variation. The pattern that we might impose
would be a horizontal relief that occurs about every foot at the first floor where there’s
one brick set in, nothing more than that - no diagonal patterns, nothing like that.
Board Member Eschweiler: Changing topics for a moment, in the comments from City
staff there were a lot of comments about the utilities. For instance, they spoke about
padmounted transformers, but you’ve proposed.transformer in the basement and other
utilities such as the backflow preventer, always an issue, where does that go - the gas
meters. Do you know where the utilities will be at this point?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. As you recall from some of the earlier proposals leading up to what
we call Alternative 4-A, we have the transformer, the electrical and the generator in this
location which became a problem in terms of noise, or perceived noise with the
residents. So we’ve moved the electrical here. A transformer is in this location,
generator. And really, there is a lift-off excess panel right there to get at it from above.
Kitchen exhaust also comes out in this area. Most of the rooftop package units will
occur really from the yellow over, and we’re trying to keep all of the noise-generating
rooftop equipment off of this part of the building.
Board Member Eschweiler: That part of the building is the part towards Silverwood
condominiums?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: And that’s for noise issues with regards to the neighbors, or
with regards to the people that are in this building?
Mr. McDevitt: With regards to the neighbors. We can demonstrate with acoustic studies
that the equipment we’re choosing is well below the limits of DbA level at the property
line with this solution. Did you want to talk about other service aspects?
Board Member Eschweiler: For instance, I assume with the kitchen there’ll be a large
grease trap or grease interceptor somewhere?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: Where would that locate?
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Mr. McDevitt: I don’t know yet. We haveto get into that much more final design as soon
as we move onto the next phase.
Board Member Eschweiler: And is the City of Palo Alto okay with the indoor
transformer?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. In fact, I just met with Fire yesterday. Gordon Simpkinson went over
the whole systems approach, just confirm changes that we had proposed. And fire
access, he’s signed off on everything.
Board Member Eschweiler: And one other question about the grading and drainage
issue. There was talk about retaining storm water on site. And in the grading plan there
are - it’s kind of a detail - but "Item 27: Provide 48" storm drain detention basin." And
there appear to be two at about 60 feet long - I don’t what they are. 1 was trying to
understand how that would impact the site plan or the building itself.
Mr. McDevitt: Well they’re going to be in this location. We’re evaluating this one versus
this one. But they’ll be below grade and they’d be a large, temporary detention pipes.
Board Member Eschweiler: So it would be a tank underneath as opposed to a pond?
Mr. McDevitt: Bio swale? We don’t have the room on this site to really make the bio
swale a meaningful solution. So there’s a restricted flow out of these tanks which is in
compliance with the City’s requirements.
Board Member Eschweiler: What actually I was referring to, you pointed to an area
that’s different. What I saw in the grading plan was - it’s hard to do without a pointer-
but if you go to the top left corner of the drawing, there’s a long bar there that runs
parallel to where the porch used to be. And then there’s a similar long bar at the auto
court, and that’s what this note is pointing to.
Mr. McDevitt: I think for reasons of long term maintenance, access, we might not want
to do that. We might move them to the rear.
Board Member Eschweiler: So that’s what you propose, is that those - what are those
things? Those are just big long tanks?
Mr. McDevitt: They’re big diameter capped pipes that receive the storm runoff that can’t
be accommodated in a trickle runoff once the intensity becomes high enough where it
needs to be retained. So it controls runoff.
Board Member Eschweiler: And it’s an underground, has no impact to the above
ground?
Mr. McDevitt: But there will be a hatch, there will be a manhole to it, and that’s why I
don’t want to see a manhole right there or right there.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay.
¯ Cio~ qfPalo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Board Member Maran: Thanks, Susan. Judith.
Board Member Judith Wasserman: Thank you. I have a question for staff. Haveyou
looked at the monument sign? is that a compliance sign?
Mr. Reich: The signage actually hasn’t been proposed as part of this application yet.
We haven’t received detailed plans for the signage. It’ll be a separate application.
Board Member Wasserman: I think most of my questions will be about public benefits
and landscaping. In the El Camino design guidelines for this area, it says that new
buildings should front El Camino with prominent fagades and street-level fagades
should have numerous pedestrian amenities. Could your landscape architect please
explain what the pedestrian experience is along El Camino?
Ms. Linda Gates. David Gates & Associates (Architects): Obviously we’re going to do a
street tree pattern to match what Public Works has determined we should do. They
haven’t determined yet. I just had a talk with Dave the other day and they haven’t
figured that out. So in terms of the character of the streetscape, that will be something
that’s set by the City of Palo Alto, and we’ll match to that. We’re proposing to create a
pocket park at this corner right next to where the VTA bus area is. What we’re looking
at right now is that it would be an open space - this is the El Camino sidewalk - this is
the VTA bus stop, right in this area to get us oriented - there’s be a couple benches
located in this space, there’d be a focal element, we’re looking at a contemporary kind
of sun dial, sort of art sculpture element. We wanted to connote through the entries into
this space, like a Bollard element, to be on a raised plint. It’s something similar to this.
It connotes the entries into the space. As people walk back into this space, this is the
dividing line in between the public and private, but we wanted to have a peek-through
gate so you could seeback into the vegetable garden area, like when you’re walking
down the streets and you see into a charming garden and such like that. And it’s seen
as an open space, an eddy space along the street, where one could stop or as you walk
by you could just enjoy the views.
Board Member Wasserman: How big is it?
Ms. Gates: How many square feet?
Board Member Wasserman: Not the square feet, but the dimensions.
Ms. Gates: 40’x40’
32
33
34
35
Board MemberWasserman: 40’x40’.
Ms. Gates: I h&ve a scale on my drawing here.
Board Member Wasserman: Is it 40’ deep and 40’ wide? So it’s 40 feet to the sidewalk.
Ms. Gates: To the sidewalk, yes.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
Board Member Wasserrnan: I knew it didn’t look square. And that’s part of your public
benefit, this little park.
Ms. Gates: Right.
Board Member Wasserman: And then as you go along the street you encounter the
kitchen windows?
6 Ms. Gates: Yes.
7
8
9
10
11
Board Member Wasserman: Maybe this is an architectural question, but are you going
to be able to see into the kitchen? People in the kitchen are going to be able to see out
to the street?
Mr. McDevitt: No.
Board Member Wasserman: What are you going to see when you walk along there?
12 Mr. McDevitt: Rather than a literal spandrel glass which we don’t think will look right,
13 there will be a panel set back behind the glazing approximately six inches. So it’ll look
14 like a window covering, and there’ll be the same kind of relief that you’d see as if there
15 were some window coverings in there. The clear story windows above are open and
16 there’ll be an articulated high ceiling that drops down to where the lay-in ceiling is over
17 the kitchen, and there’ll be incandescent lighting visible from the clear story lighting with
18 the fluorescent working kitchen lighting going on.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
Board Member Wasserman: So as you walk by, what you’re seeing is essentially what
looks like closed blinds or something like that.
Mr. McDevitt: for two windows.
Board Member Wasserman: And then you go on and there’s the dining room. And from
your rendering it looks like people are going to eat outside in good weather?
Mr. McDevitt: What you see is paving in the little court off the dining. We maintain the
walls, but there won’t be paving against the windows of the kitchen, and planting within
the walls will help diffuse that.
Board Member Wasserman: Do you have a drawing of what these walls look like?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. They should be on the last page of your packet. There’s just some
very preliminary sketch details in there, on the left.
Board Member Wasserman: Brick pillars with steel fences.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. Assum~ they’re three feet high with a four-inch pre-cast cap, brick
detailing with a soldier ed _~n the top. They’re approximately eight inches or 16
inches maybe, in between, aeep. And the ironwork is set in between.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Board Member Wasserman: And this is all along the El Camino edge? Is it all along the
Sheridan edge also? It’s a little hard to tell from the drawings because your elevations
don’.t show the fencing.
Mr. McDevitt: The one that shows it the best is the perspective sketch which would be
number seven. So I just describe the two bays right here that’ll have the short walls.
And then we begin again right here and it runs along the length and really forms the
portal to the drive entry. So you see one bay right here. And then the wall stops right
there, picks up again right there and then stops and then picks up again right here. Of
course, this has to be 3’6" tall because that’s demarcating the drive down below. And
there’s one more thing. The wall then turns and forms the public/private separation right
here.
Board Member Wasserman: And that’s another one of these little public parks that’s
part of your public benefit? Okay. That was pretty well described I thought. That’s
about the same size as the other thing, approximately.
Mr. McDevitt: A little smaller.
Board Member Wasserman: Did you know that there is a public park down the block on
Ash Street?
Ms. Gates: Yes. We saw the public park down there. We’re not trying to provide any
play equipment or anything.
Board Member Wasserman: I understand that, but have you considered as part of your
public benefit providing some amenities in that park that would make it attractive to
seniors and usable by seniors? It would be a nice destination for somebody who still
had a little mobility, to keep them active.
Sunrise Development Representative: One of the things that came up at the Planning
and Transportation Commission meeting - and I think it was Commissioner Burr who
brought it up or maybe even somebody from the audience - was talking about the lack
of public park facilities in the area. And so based upon that, this is what our contribution
is to that, to allow residents in the area to have a place to sit, to read, to have some
quiet spaces that would be off the street.
Board Member Wasserman: I didn’t mean instead of.
I understand. But no, we have not considered that.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. You’ve mentioned some focal points and some
other things. Have you considered any public art in your landscaping or in your
architecture?
Ms. Gates: We haven’t created any public art right now. We are designating some
focals and selecting some elements that we think would be focal elements. But as far
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
as I know- once again, that might be a question for the owner. We haven’t gone
through any public art discussion.
Sunrise Development Reuresentative: Excuse me. One of the things that we are
considering doing is we like the detail that downtown Palo Alto is using on the top of the
wrought iron, and that is what we’re planning to do, something kind of intriguing along
there. It’s going to take us some time to figure that out, but that’s the direction we’re
heading in.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you; that’s a better answer. I have a technical
question that probably has a very simple answer. As you went from one version of this
plan to the next you actually increased your lot coverage. Could you explain what that
was all about?
Mr. McDevitt: I-have a copy of the first floor plan. When we moved the building a little
farther toward the corner, when the porch was deleted, we did increase our coverage.
And then we eroded from the building at the upper floor.
Board Member Wasserman: But the sum total of adding and eroding still left you with
more coverage than you had before.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, because the first floor is bigger.
Board Member Wasserman: Is there a way of getting that territory back into the
landscape, into the public parks?
20 Mr. McDevitt: I’d have to say without analyzing it in more detail, I don’t know. I have a
21 feeling here that we might have had a number that was representing heated spaces.
22 We do have a larger heated space on the ground floor.
23 Board Member Wasserman: I was just reading the zoning summary that said "Lot
24 coverage, 18,600" and before it had been some other number, 17-something I think.
25 And I just didn’t know where it was coming and where it was going. So my last question
26 has to do with the comments of the neighbors. One person has spoken anyway, gives
27 you a chance to answer what he said. He thought that the building was too large.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36.
37
38
39
Mr. McDevitt: I would go back to my opening lines where we talked about how we’re
breaking up the roofline, and 1 showed some of the 3-D sketches where we feel like
we’re stepping the building more than it was, especially in this area adjacent to the
Silverwood. And the site plans, if you were to go to those early alternatives 1 through 4
-some of those are older history - I will go back to those - we’ve moved the building
from our initial planning submittal of 20 feet to where we are now at 30 feet, and then 44
feet above the second floor away from the Silverwood. So I think we’ve improved that
dramatically from what was initially proposed to the neighbors. So both the vertical
stepping down of the building, more articulation at the corner, direct reference to .their
building height with the three-story tower, and then around the corner the tower drops
down to a full two stories, and maintaining this large distance here of 40 feet - ! hope
we’ve answered the question right.
Cir." of Paio Alto ]~age 18
1 Board Member Wasserman: Thank you very much; that’s all.
2 Board Member Maran: Thanks Judith. Ken.
3
4
5
6
7
Board Member Kenneth Komberq: I’m looking at the sample board. Are these samples
of the colors of the brick, or you’re planning a full size brick, aren’t you?
Board Member Maran: Yes. We wo61d use brick that are laid out in a traditional format,
no face brick allowed. You’ll be able to put your fingers behind this brick.
Board Member Komberq: It’s not glued on.
Board Member Maran: No. That’s what I was afraid of with the stone. I proposed cut
stone, dry joints and end up with some contractors who say we can do it just as well and
they convince an owner that that applied plaster version is okay. I want to run away.
So I think brick is fairly hard to mess with.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Board Member Kornber.q: I didn’t quite pick up why you changed from trellises to
awnings.
Board Member Maran: We had the porch initially and it really wrapped around the entire
corner of the building here. When making the change with pushing the building out,
further emphasizing the windows close to the sidewalk, we felt like we wanted to
maintain some vestige of that porch at the intermediate set of drawings you looked at.
So where you see rafter tails not sticking out but some articulation of a porch here, we
felt like that would be a good location for a trellis, and that would be a location for a
trellis that was off the face of the building, only at the towers. Upon further study we’ve
justbeen refining it and refining it and we felt like it was a little cleaner and more in
keeping with expressing this corner as an active-- if there was a mixed use part of this
building that would be it because of the activities inside equivalent to a restaurant -
different lighting activity inside which animates the building. We made it more of a
continuous solution around the corner.
Board
Board
Member Kornberq: Are they canvas, or what are you using for the material?
Member Maran: for the canopy?
Board Member Komberq: For the awning.
Board Member Maran: Well I think at this point I’m going to say that it’s going to be a
higher quality awning than a square tube steel structure with too many pieces to it. Our
goal is to make it elegant. Maybe it doesn’t have sides on it, very. sharp return, if at all,
in the front. But it would be a long-lasting, resistant to UV, polyester fabric, dark Color.
Some of the drawings that have been coming off of our printer are going a little green. I
don’t know why we have that, but they would be more of a neutral dark gray or
something like that.
Cio, of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
Board Member Komber.q: i was just concerned that El Camino produces a huge amount
of rubber and dust and exhaust. And on a horizontal surface I’m not sure what the right
awning material would be, but there’s ones that aren’t very successful along El Camino
and I just worry about a trellis might be more forgiving.
5 Board Member Maran: The trellis, when it was cantilevered seemed a little foreign to the
6 context. And to knee brace it back, we started to recall some of the lodge character that
7 we were requested to veer away from. So that potential large structure that was strong
8 enough to withstand the elements or some window cleaner standing on it might have
9 made them a little bit of a caricature by themselves when there’s really no other
10 reference except for those two points right there and there in the building.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Board Member Komber.q: Your selection of this metal panel. That paRicular groove,
how low does that get down - I’m looking at the package you just gave us today. Is the
lowest one the one right over the entry, second floor, is that the lowest point that you
would actually be close to the metal groove?
Mr. McDevitt: You’d also be that close to it right here.
Board Member Kornberq: Okay, the same elevation.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, right above that band.
Board Member Komber.q: So where you have the window protrusions all around, that’s
where you’re at.
Mr. McDevitt: I’m not following that window protrusions.
Board Member Kornberq: Where you pop out the windows, bay windows, all around the
building, everywhere you do that, that’s the metal coming down to the top of the first
floor.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. So you can see it occurs twice along El Camino Real, once
[repeated], and then on the side on the north elevation it steps. And for all the bays that
occur on the east elevation.
Board Member Komberq: So there are also three on the east elevation?
Board Member Maran: Yes. At this point there are no cantilevered bays where the
soffits are exposed that come down to the ground.
Board Member Kornberq: the next question I had, how do you resolved that the metal
groove lands on what? The bottom of the groove sits on a metal plate that would be
welded? How would you handle that?
Mr. McDevitt: Well, the structural support itself, the slab edges, will be detailed to
accommodate a typical steel stud detailing with sheathing which this siding is
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
compatible with. It doesn’t require a welded plate like a pre-cast panel would. I don’t
know if that answers your question.
Board Member Kornber,q: I don’t have an answer. I’ve never done it this way. I used it
horizontally and then use a standard flashing detail at the bottom. But vertically I’ve
either welded it to steel...
Mr. McDevitt: We showed you some photographs of the same panel used horizontally.
Board Member Kombera: Horizontally I understand how.
Mr. McDevitt: There’s an associated kit of window wrap, outside corners inside corners.
And at the bottom where you’re making a soffit out of it. I’m going to ask the question:
Is there an issue with horizontal versus vertical?
Board Member Kornbergl You mean talking about the metal?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Kornber.q: I’m just trying to understand - I don’t visualize it yet. 1 can
see the panel but I can’t see how it’s going to work.
Mr. McDevitt: We’re not incredibly passionate about what direction it is. We think that it
better contrasts the building but believe me, we’ve been showing it a lot horizontal as
well. And you have two versions of it. I apologize for that.
Board Member Kornber,q: What’s the soffit material where you do have soffit? Is it
plaster?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. The high soffits, our goal will be to have a wood-like linear soffit.
The choices are aluminum or vinyl. Whether we choose the vented or not directly is a
question. The low soffits would be plaster in the porch. We very often use plaster
soffits and now that we’re away from the more craftsman literal soffit, that wood
reference might go away. It might just be simpler to have a plaster soffit.
Board Member Kornberq: ! was trying to follow with the drawings that we got originally
and then today in the interim package. Your discussion about the dark windows and
light siding, and I just got confused and couldn’t go fast enough. What you’re showing
on the rendering seems to be monochromatic for all the windows. Maybe I’m just
missing something.
Mr. McDevitt: I really explained that to the guy with the brush, but we didn’t get it done.
But if i could just explain it here. We’re looking for variety so that we don’t have the
same regimented window type. And we don’t want the same kind of siding, and I think
certain areas of the building need to be articulated as important corners.
Board Member Kornberq: So when you’re talking about dark versus light, you’re talking
about the frame and the muliions, and l’m talking about the glass.
City of Palo Alto Page 21 "
1
2
Mr. McDevitt: About the glass. These would be dark and these would be dark.
Everything else is light frames.
3 Board Member Komber,q: So where you have the metal it’s always dark. And where
4 you have everything else it’s always light.
5 Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And that’s a subtlety overlay that we’ve debated. It’s the same
6 window system but it’s another color choice.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Board Member Kornber.q: Like some of the other Board members, I’m hot familiar with
the Hardy material. It comes in different textures and different patterns and different...
Mr. McDevitt: I almost brought it in. Yes, it comes in tr.~o many textures. If it has a
wood-like texture it’s kind of exaggerated. We would ;’ot use it. I think our intent is to
be very smooth. If we were buying the best cedar I want that side out, equivalent.
That’s why we have the very smooth specified. And it paints well.
Board Member Komber,q: How thick is it? is it about ¾" thick?
Mr. McDevitt: At its thinnest it’s probably 5/16". At its thickest it’s probably about.¾".
Board Member Komberq: And it has some fiber and it’s cementitious?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And it needs to be back-painted and edge painted. Then it lasts.
Board Member Kornberg..i. What deteriorates in it that requires the painting?
Mr. McDevitt: Poor installation and no back priming. Otherwise it’s held up quite well.
Board Member Komberq: When I met with you in the office you said you’d try to find out
if you can get light through the stairwells, exterior lighting. Did you have any luck with
the code review?
Mr. McDevitt: Well, we have light on this stairwell and in a large window at the top
above the mid-landing. So inside at the end of the stairwell, which would be right here,
you’re at the level where you could look out that window. As soon as you go down the
mid-landing the window’s above. Then at the mid-landing between levels three and
four, there’s approximately a 3-1/2-foot square window, and then again, between two
and three. And then at the first floor we have a store door with a relight.
Board Member Kornber.q.i Is the stairwell itself rated?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Boa~~ Member Kombera: And is the corridor that connects the stairwells rated also?
Mr. ivicDevitt: Yes. And the door outside has got to be a steel frame with a firelight
solution.
Cir. of Paio Alto Page 22
Board Member Komber.q: So the door between the two doesn’t have to have a
separating rating. Is that glass, the door between the corridor and the stairwell?
Mr. McDevitt: Oh, that’s definitely rated. That’s a two-hour enclosure.
Board Member Komberq: Can you get any glass in that?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. You could have X number of square inches which would be about a
square window.
7
8
9
10
11
12
Board Member Komberq: Or firelight or something like that?
Mr. McDevitt: We always use firelight. Wire glass has a connotation that we don’t like to
introduce in these buildings.
Board Member Kornber,q: When we talked about it before you said you were going to
see if we can get as much light. I just wonder if it’s going to be enough to make that
bright.
13 Mr. McDevitt: I know. And I think in order to preserve the rhythm of the bays being the
14 most glazed and the field being punched with smaller windows, I went back to this. 1
15 drive by a medical office building near my home every day and there’s a building that
16 when the lights are off or when it’s really sunny there’s a stairway that’s perpendicular
17 with full height glazing and it looks appropriate. When the lights are on and it’s evening,
18 it’s bright and literally garish. You just see the stairs. And unless they’re detailed stairs
19 that belong in an art gallery, I think that’s going to be more of an eyesore. Quite frankly
20 the stairs in the exit towers are American Stair with fairly simple steel detailing. We can
21 do a lot more with the verticals.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Board Member Kornber,q: Did you look at any other roof forms for El Camino? I’m think
of E! Camino as being sort of a special elevation that you can treat differently, trying to
be more sympathetic or richer as far as that treatment. And the very low roofline that
you show is one option. I wondered if you’d thought of any others for that area.
Mr. McDevitt: Not that we’re intending to be more provocative. I think we understand
the sheds were a little odd being that high. There needs to be more than one when you
use that kind of a solution. When we moved away from those sheds we were intending
on quieting that down and letting the wall articulation and the material change be
enough. We have proposed maintaining the masonry full height along this fagade to
where it runs that length and this length and then it returns back, and then it’s low plints
from here on.
Board Member Kornberq: How do you get the transformer out? I know that you have a
lid on the exterior, but where does the truck park to get the transformer out?
Mr. McDevitt: He’s going to be limited to right here. Now transformers, you’re able to
take them apart and bring them out in pieces. And l’m going to assume that we’re going
to have a tripod that we set up and we raise it up and we pull it out.
CiO’ of Palo Alto )~age 23
1 Board Member Komberq: I should have asked, how do you get the new transformer in?
2 That usually comes in one piece.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Mr. McDevitt: That’ll be easy because they can pull up and lower it in before the
landscape installation occurs.
Board Member Kornber,q: For some reason, every project we do the City of Palo Alto, at
about working drawing time, comes back and says - we’re going to park our truck within
five feet of wherever your transformer is and the truck is a monster.
Mr. McDevitt: If that were to. occur, we do have some flexibility where we can modify our
extension of the garage out under the building.
Board Member Komberq: Okay, because I think that’s hit me late in the planning stage
so you might be...that right now. Talk to Utilities, not just the Fire Department.
Mr. McDevitt: So you’re recommending that we actually make accommodations for it to
be closer?
Board Member Kornberq: I’ve had to put it by the driveway. They forced us to do it.
That’s all the questions I have. Thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks Ken. Do I understand that there’s no color rendering
from the east elevation?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Let’s just look at that for a moment. The bulk of that elevation is
adjacent to the VTA parking lot, is that correct?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: So we’ll be seeing that a lot, right? in fact, let’s say you’re on
Page Mill in the parking lot at the VTA or we’re standing on the sidewalk on Page Mill.
That would really be a big, broad expanse, right?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: That’s going to be a pretty important one?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Before i forget, 1 want to disclose that I met with the appiicants a
couple times since the last meeting. Does anybody else want to disclose now?
Board Member Kornberq: They already disclosed that we all did. We didn’t get a
chance to disclose.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
Board Member Maran: They said that. Okay. Everybody agree to that? Okay. We’ve
all disclosed. Jerry, can we talk about the lead project checklist for a moment? I know
that we have two - one that was with the original submittal, or the submittal from last
week, and then one that was handed to us today- so there’s one dated January 2 and
one February 3, ’04. The February 3 one from today adds one point, and I notice that
the added point is in Section 1, Sustainable Sites,-Ground Field Redevelopment.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: How did that come about? How did this point get added?
Sunrise Development Representative: I think this is the one that pertains to the storm
drain runoff, is that not correct?
Mr. McDevitt: That’s something underground that needs to be removed.
Mr. McDevitt: Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I know now what it is. We had this discussion
last week. There is some lead on the site, and that lead is being mitigated and going to
be removed. And we were told by the LEEDs consultant from Gerry’s firm that that
probably will qualify.
Board Member Maran: Great, thanks. Moving down that list, a couple of points.
There’s no point taken for alternative transportation which is alternative fuel, refueling
stations. Are you familiar with that one?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Does that include electric car recharging station?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: And you don’t want to go for that one?
Mr. McDevitt: At the time when we were going through all of the lists in terms of
achieving items with most impact and least cost, there’s really one vehicle Sunrise
operates. So we elected not to. When we’re into large expanses and community
college campuses or even golf facilities you can do quite well with that.
Board Member Maran: I’d think the golf facility, that would be a no-brainer unless you
got diesel golf carts. Moving down, under Energy and Atmosphere, there’s the ozone
depletion, and you took a point for that. Can you tell me what that’s about.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, I’m looking at it. What number are we again?
Board Member Maran: It’s credit #4 under Energy and Atmosphere, which is the third
section.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mr. McDevitt: Well, I’m not seeing it in my long list here. But we were able to minimize
or prohibit the use of glue types, low VOC paint, we are able to use that. And the
consistent specification of products that we use would allow us to qualify for that point.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. And two points down from there is Green Power, and
that’s a question mark, which is neither a yes or a no. Have you considered signing up-
for the City of Palo Alto Utility Department’s Green Power Source program, and would
that qualify you for this point if you signed up for it?
Mr. McDevitt: It would. I think it’s a decision that we haven’t made yet. Right after this
meeting I have an appointment with Lindsey Joy. We’re going to talk about that.
Board Member Maran: That was my next question. And is that the first meeting?
Mr. McDevitt: Other than phone calls, yes. She wasn’t available yesterday, so we’re
doing it a little backwards, but I hope that’s regarded as positive. She’s anxious to meet
with us.
Board Member Maran: And l’m sure you’re anxious to meet with her. Moving onto the
next section. The certified wood is a question mark, which is credit #7. Can you tell me
anything about the thinking on that? The qualification would be 50% wood, FSC
certified.
Mr. McDevitt: We could easily qualify for that. Again, that’s a point that we might take.
That’s why we list it as a maybe. We’re going to need to draw from a different stable of
general contractors than we typically use, and that’s a question, that’s a big one,
because unless we get the right one who’s very committed to following through on this,
we’re going to be very frustrated. And that’s one item that they can make a mistake on
pretty quickly unless they’re really committed.
Board Member Maran: Did I hear that you have 38 LEED-certified professionals in your
office?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
27
28
29
Board Member Maran: That’s quite a commitment. Will some of them be working on
this project, or have some of them been working on it?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
30
31
32
33
34
Board Member Maran: Great. So the total now is...
Mr. McDevitt: Next time you see me I’ll have mine, I hope.
Board Member Maran: You’ll have yours? You’ll look different - you’ll be green. That’s
all I have for now. Does anybody else onthe Board want to ask a question before we
turn it back to comments? Judith.
CiO, of Paio Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Board Member Wasserman: Ken’s line of questioning about the siding made me think of
something. When you use the siding vertically, it comes down at the bottom of the
second floor and at the top of the first floor you’ve got brick coming up. My thought
about whether it’s better to use the siding horizontally or vertically would depend on
what that interface was and then what kind of corners you use on the metal siding in
both conditions. Could you explain those edge conditions for the metal siding.
Mr. McDevitt: You’re right on target with that detail. It’s a lot easier to control that detail
with horizontal siding on the outside corner. It’s a brick module kind of problem with a
similar problem to brick module if you’re doing it vertical. That’s a careful process we
have to go through so we can assure that that outside comer strip, 4" elbow strip, is
happening on the high point of the siding and not the low point.
Board Member Wasserman: And where the siding meets the brick, is there some
intervening trim detail or material or something? it’s kind of sketched in in the color
rendering, but it’s a little hard to tell what exactly it is because you didn’t have any
details.
Mr. McDevitt: Sometimes on purpose. This is going to be something prominent, and
we’re evaluating it right now as being a cast stone detail that’s on top on the brick, that
this maintains that along the first floor, up above...
Board Member Wasserman: The top of that would be thick enough to receive the
vertical?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay. And so if you did this metal siding horizontally, you
still have those 4" corner boards.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Wasserman: !’m voting for vertical.
Mr. McDevitt: Correct. Those corner boards are actually nice because they can be the
same size as the expressed face of the rib or a little bigger. We like them a little bigger
for the windows. We may not like them a little bigger for the corners, probably not, so
we’ll have them smaller at the corners.
Board Member Wasserman: Well if that’s the case, then I’m voting for the vertical.
Board Member Maran: Any other questions?
Board Member Eschweiler: Looking at the landscape plan and site plan, and then how it
relates to the elevations. I realize that I’m confused. Linda, in your write-up you talked
about porches wrapping around the building and I wasn’t quite following where those
were. And then looking at the site plan - 1 don’t know whether those are patios or
porches that are colored in with little crosshatch paving.
Ci~ of Pale Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ms. Gates: Those are patios. They’d be like gray patio spaces that would have the low
wall we talked about; they’d be like enclosed patio spaces.
Board Member Eschweiler: So it’s an enclosed patio and then the awning hangs out
over the top of that by how much?
Ms. Gates: Four feet.
Board Member Eschweiler: And on I think both the floor plans and site plan we’re
showing - the one you just pointed to for instance, has a pair of doors swinging out.
And yet on the elevation, we’ve got a pair of windows. Doesn’t seem to jibe with doors.
And that same thing occurs on that El Camino elevation. We’re not showing doors on
either of those locations. How would that integrate with the architecture?
Mr. McDevitt: There’s doors there.
12 -Board Member Eschweiler: There are? Surprise.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Mr. McDevitt: There will be.
Ms. Gates: They gave us the doors in there, so we’re assuming they are.
Board Member Eschweiler: Well it looks like it would be doors for exiting from the dining
room.
Ms. Gates: Makes good sense.
Board Member Eschweiler: And to go out onto the patio, makes sense if that’s what
we’re doing. It’s probably a security issue, but at any rate, assuming that those doors
have to be there, how do they integrate with the fa£:ade?
Mr. McDevitt: The doors would be - rather than a metal store front door, they’ll be a
wood-like store front door that’s integrated into the window system. It’ll be glazed for
the most part.
Board Member Eschweiler: So is the window module a three-foot module?
Mr. McDevitt: No. Were not restricted to that with Anderson.
Board Member Eschweiler: But from an exiting standpoint, wouldn’t it have to be a
three-foot wide door?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. We’re going to have to reassess the exit, and a pair versus a single
is a decision we’ll make. But I don’t think it’ll impact the quality of the store front for the
glazed character of the first floor. We would not use solid doors.
Board Member Eschweiler: And you mentioned at the stair facing Et Camino, that that -
although shown on here - is just a rectangle, implying solid door, that that would
actually get...
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Mr. McDevitt: The color drawing, something happened to it and it wouldn’t print right.
The line drawing shows a door with a two ??? relight. That’ll be at least an 18 inch-wide
relight and it’ll stop at the 2-foot high or so with a solid panel below it, one overall frame
wrapping the whole composition.
31
Board Member Eschweiler: Transitioning a moment. What about lighting? No one has
spoken about that, but you had two options in your packet, two different styles of
fixtures. Would you like to address that?
32
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. Lighting really has two facets to it - how we intend on lighting it and
where the locations are, and what the character and detail of the lighting and fixtures
are. There’s a palette of fixture types that are Follard fixtures.
Board Member Eschweiler: This appears to be option 3. We have option 1 and 2 in our
packet. What we have in our package, I’d be happy to share it with you, is the Valencia
Luminaire and the Beacon
Sunrise Development Representative: We got the modern and the colonial.
Mr. McDevitt: They won’t be colonial. We would use more craftsman and contemporary
fixtures.
Board Member Eschweiler: So which is your preference?
Mr. McDevitt: Not that.
Board Member Eschweiler: Not that one?
Mr. McDevitt: I don’t know what that one is. I’m afraid there may have been some free
copies ~- ÷ ..........s..n. out that ~,~,-~a~,’+ have. If we could dwell on the site lighting idea and
where the placement of the fixtures are.
Board Member Eschweiler: That’s fine. You can come back with light fixtures...
Mr. McDevitt: I’ll definitely come back with a very detailed set of lighting fixtures. We
seem to have too many.
Board Member Eschweiler: One further clarification about the front entry porch. You
talked about the roof there, that that was metal roof. The model showed it being a flat
roof. So is that a sloped roof then?
Mr. McDevitt: The roof is sloped, and if you look at the second page of your packet
you’ll see that that’s been corrected.
Board Member Eschweiler: So it’s like the rendering, shows a sloped metal roof.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Cio’ of I’alo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
Board Member Eschweiler: And for both the metal roof and the metal siding, how does
that relate to the residential style that Sunrise is trying to convey?
Mr. McDevitt: I think the standing seam roof and the color we showed on our board, 16"
on center battens, is very compatible with the main roofing material. And one’s just a
little more refined looking, the metal, when it comes down close or becomes tactile to
the pedestrians walking by. And in the towers themselves we used it just to further
articulate how they’re different.
Board Member Eschweiler: Could you take a moment and walk us through the color
board? We didn’t actually talk about the colors and materials that are on there.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay. Shall I just point at it and then give it back?
11 Board Member Eschweiler: It’s going to be on a building, it’s okay. We don’t need it up
12 close.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Mr. McDevitt: What we show as the laminate shingles are this material for all the high
roofs, and then the metal ribbed standing seam roof- which is a subtle difference but
just a bit of a sheen difference and more refined - that’s used at this tower, this tower,
the one in the back, and this roof right here. That’s the extent of it. The brick masonry
will be used for all the low walls that we talked about along El Camino and Sheridan as
well as the entire first floor of this zone and this zone, and then below the windows and
columns in this zone as well as below the windows in this zone and around the back of
the building. We also use the brick to the top of the second floor of the tower and the
top of the third floor of this tower as well as the one at the rear.
Board Member Eschweiler: And why did you bring the brick up above that first floor
level?
Mr. McDevitt: To further give importance to that corner and to allow us to have deep set
windows up to that belt line as distinct from these, which is the top floor. I don’t know if
that answers your question. We didn’t want to have it just be a literal base only when
we had the option to increase it at those key areas. The two window colors are this
dark - it’s an Anderson wood window with vinyl cladding, and the light window. Now we
often use white. We thought it’d be preferable to use a light putty color for the windows
that we call "light."
The paint scheme for the horizontally Hardy material for the metal panels and for the
running trim, so the running trim is here and here, and then the wrap around the
windows, this paint scheme is here. This prefabricated factory finish is here.
Board Member Eschweiler: If you could just focus on the metal panel color which is the
lighter putty, and then we have the dark brown windows in that and window trim?
Mr. McDevitt: No, just dark brown windows.
Board Member Eschweiler: And then it goes to the ivory-colored...
Cizy of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, in these locations with the trim purposely contrasting the siding.
Here we’re not going to purposely contrast the metal panel with wraps around the
windows. That wrap around the window finishes the metal panel detail, but I think it
should be the same color.
Board Member Eschweiler: As-the metal or the window?
Mr. McDevitt: As the metal. So only the window is dark. And I emphasize frame, glass
is clear.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay.
Board Member Maran: Any other questions? I have just a couple quick questions. Two
things, going back to the LEED certification. There is, .as I know it, not yet a LEED for
residential. Is this project going to fall within...
Mr. McDevitt: It’s a commercial.
Board Member Maran: It’s considered commercial from that standpoint?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Maran: And do you intend to go for the full LEED certification, or
registration 1 guess I should say.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s our goal. I’ve been very positive about it, and I think it would be a
landmark decision for Sunrise in that it really represents a huge marketing opportunity in
terms of emphasizing indoor quality for seniors. There’s a very tight pro forma, we’re
balancing all our decision on that, as well as design decisions.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, that’s helpful. And my last question is for staff. Where
are we in terms of this project, in terms of getting it through approvals, meaning both in
terms of the discussion we had last week in the ARB retreat on the auditor’s report
which means trying to speed up the approvals, but also in the long-term process. How
does this project stand in terms of moving towards a building permit?
Russ Reich: We anticipate going back to Planning Commission about a month from
now, and then to City Council a month after that.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Is that based on a recommendation of approval from
this Board, or is that just...
Russ Reich: That would be based on the recommendation and approval today. If it’s
not approved today, then the timing would be off.
Board Member Maran: I see; thanks. Okay, any other questions from the Board? So
now we’re going to hear from members.of the public. We have four people 1 believe
who want to speak to this topic, so l’m going to ask people to keep their comments to
Cir. of Paio Alto }~age 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
three minutes and also to be ready to speak following the person in front of them. First
person is Bob Cutler and the second one will be Angelica Volterra.
Mr. Bob Cutler: Hi. Bob Cutler. I live at 435 Sheridan Avenue, Silverwood
condominiums. And first I’d just like to say that I think that the land use of the land is
excellent, that I think the City needs an assisted living facility, and so I’m pleased to see
that’s being considered. Also, as president of the homeowners’ association at
Silverwood, I’ve had the opportunity of hosting many meetings at our facility with the
management of Sunrise and our homeowners. And I think they’ve been extremely
helpful. Sunrise has presented the plans over the many months as they’ve evolved,
and we’ve made suggestions and are very pleased to see that the majority of our
concerns have been incorporated in the current plan, and we look forward to having
them as a neighbor. Thanks.
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Next is Angelica Volterra, followed by DeAnn
Underwood.
Ms. Angelica Volterra: I’d like to defer to DeAnn because she has to leave, if I may, and
then I’ll go right after here if that’s all right with you. Thank you.
Ms. DeAnn Underwood: Hi. I’m DeAnn Underwood. My husband and I live at
Silverwood. And we do have one concern, and that is the two-story section that’s only
12 feet. We would propose it being more two story or three story before it goes way up
to four story on the Sitverwood side. I have a landscape question. I was wondering, if
the acacia trees going to be removed from the fence right along Silverwood. And then I
have one other question. Where do the delivery trucks go and the garbage and
recycle? Where do they access the building? And that’s all I have.
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Perhaps we could get responses to those at the end
of the public comment. Angelica.
Ms. Anqelica Volterra: Thank you very much. My name is Angelica Volterra and thank
you for the opportunity of speaking here. First, a number of the Silverwood
condominium owners who are very concerned about this project could not be here this
morning because of work obligations. Two have already had to leave, one without
speaking. So if I go over by a minute or two, I hope you’ll indulge me because there are
a number of concerns that I would like to express on their behalf. I do disagree with Mr.
Cutler that a majority of the concerns have been addressed. I think there are some
significant concerns that remain.
First about traffic -l’ve submitted a number of letters to the City as well as spoken at a
Planning Commission meeting about very specific concerns that i had regarding the
previous traffic analysis that was prepared by Fair and Pierce. These included
concerns about trip generation and distribution assumptions, parking, cumulative
impacts, deliveries, the TDM or Transportation Demand Management Plant that had
been proposed; also strong concerns about the manner in which Fair and Pierce had
responded to my earlier comments. Only late yesterday I obtained a copy of the new
CiO, of Palo Aho .Page 32
1 traffic analysis that has been prepared. I’ve not had the opportunity to review it.
2 is one thing I have seen already that was incorrect, so I would like to have an
3 opportunity to review it.
There
I think it’s unfortunate that the environmental review of this project has not been
completed prior to the ARB review. The mitigated Negative Dec was only circulated
yesterday, the day before the meeting, and after the preliminary ARB meeting and the
preliminary Planning Commission meeting. You’re being asked to make a decision
about a project without the benefit of public comments regarding the environmental
documents. If there are significant impacts that are discovered and disclosed during the
environmental review period, I believe you should have the benefit of knowing about
those before you make decisions about the project, as projects sometimes have to be
revised based on environmental impacts that are disclosed.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
This project does not provide enough public benefits to justify the excesses allowed and
being requested under the PC zoning. The language of the benefits is very, very vague.
For example, Sunrise is proposing to work with the application, will work to enable the
applicant has proposed. But for example, with the Avenidas Senior Center, it’s not clear
what exactly is going to be involved in rendering available meeting space. They’re
proposing to open it to all seniors in Palo Alto which will create parking and traffic
impacts that have not been worked out. They’re talking about possibly a shuttle, but it’s
not Clear how you can open it to all seniors in Palo Alto and then use shuttles to shuttle
them to the site.
Also, the pedestrian and bus-friend area, the landscape element on El Camino, would
provide a very limited public benefit. Only.a limited number of people, probably mostly
VTA bus riders for short periods of time, would likely use this space given its location
near a.very busy and very noisy site along El Camino near Oregon Expressway/Page
Mill intersection.
The BMRs are not part of the public benefit. It is apparently the BMR services that are
going to be considered the public benefit. However, it’s not clear exactly what is being
offered, so we’re not certain exactly what amount of public benefit that is.
They’re requesting 81 units on about an acre on four floors. This is a large, significant
departure from the current zoning. They don’t appear, in my opinion, to have addressed
a number of concerns that were expressed by the ARB at the last meeting regarding the
project, the lack of public benefit and the architecture and site plans. The plans don’t
look substantively different from a set of plans that were apparently presented. Where
are the alternate plans that were requested, I believe? The building actually seems to
be more uniform in height, not less so. The step up from two to [four] floors on the
Silverwood edge only emphasizes how massive this is relative to Silverwood. The
building does not appear to have been lowered on the Silverwood side as requested. It
looks like they’ve removed mass from the central part when they rearranged that little
central courtyard, but it doesn’t look like they’ve actually moved a substantial amount of
that mass away from Silverwood.
Cio’ of Palo Alto t~age 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I also want to say that Silverwood is a three-story building. For the people on the top
floor of Silverwood, they have fairly tall ceilings so that their windows are actually
substantially lower relative to the fourth floor of the proposed Sunrise building, so I think
the daylight plane issues need to be discussed further.
I don’t understand yet the distance from Silverwood, and I hope that they will clarify that
again - how much they actually did move the building over. it’s not clear to me that the
actual building footprint was moved substantially further away from Silverwood. Sunrise
is an incredibly profitable company. They have three-story facilities in other
communities including Belmont, and I think this four-story building is a very substantial
amount of mass on a fairly small lot.
So I hope you won’t approve the project today. It needs significant reworking, and I
think that needs to happen before approval. So thank you very much.
13 I also brought with me some pictures for you all, photographs of the street. Actually I’ve
14 taken them at different times of the day so you can see that the street is virtually fully
15 parked during morning, noontime and late afternoon hours. So I think it’s something to
16 be conside~-ed and there’s a lot of concern about the parking impacts also for the
17 neighboring residents. So you’re welcome to have these if you’d like.
18
19
20
21
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Helena Roeber followed by Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Volterra: I believe she had to leave. She couldn’t stay because of her work
obligations.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. Joy.
22 Ms. Joy O.qawa: l’m Joy Ogawa, Yale Street. I’m passing out a copy of the e-mail I sent
23 for the previous Board meeting which is asking for disclosure on who the owner of the
24 property is. It’s an LLC, and I just think in terms of conflict-of interest it’s important to
25 know who has financial interest, individuals who have financial interest in that LLC. This
26 is a discussion that occurred at City Council. And I’m sure that that question is going to
27 be asked at City Council, and it’s likely that Council will ask the applicant to disclose that
28 information.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Board Member Wasserman’s question about the building being too big - the response
was that they’d improved the building - was that the response - I guess that was the
response. So they’ve improved the building since they first originally presented it to the
neighbors. But I guess the point is the building is still 44’10" which exceeds RM40
height limits which is 40 feet. And furthermore, the building exceeds the maximum RM-
40 FAR by 55%, so it’s way more massive, 55% more massive than RM-40 zoning
would allow.
And also, the RM-40 zoning information ignores the fact that part of this property, the
part along El Camino, is zoned neighborhood commercial that’s supposed to provide
neighborhood-serving retail uses. Neighborhood commercial zoning allows for a much
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
smaller building unless the building is mixed use, commercial/residential, which this
building is not.
3 The project I feel actually causes a loss of benefit to the public because it eliminates
4 neighborhood-serving ground floor retail that used to exist along El Camino, and :they’re
5 now replacing it. So I feel that this building is going in a direction that I would rather not
6 see happen along El Camino. Thank you.
7 Board Member Maran: Thank you, Joy. Are there any other members of the public who
8 wish to speak to this? Go ahead.
Mr. Roger V. Smith: My name is Roger Smith, and 1 have a condo at 425 Grant, #27,
which is two blocks from this site. I feel very strongly that we need a facility like this in
Palo Alto. Many of us are getting older, many people are of the gap generation that
have parents that are older. I have from first-hand experience that Sunrise does a very
nice job in working with their patients and clients and people that live with them. And I
think they would do it in a friendly and a very decent way, they would handle folks that
have these problems, some of which may not have a problem if they’re in assisted
living. My wife and I just recently gave a contribution to the Alzheimer’s Foundation, but
it’s a big problem as we all know.
18 in private discussions with six individual City Council members, that revenue is an
19 important thing for our city. We cannot take that for g.ranted. It seems like this would
20 offer some property tax. Also if 50-60 people would be working there, they’d be
21 spending money here in Palo Alto. Also, I think it would increase our hotel tax because
22 a number of people would come to visit their relatives here. And interesting enough, I
23 think many would come on the weekends when they would be working, and that’s a low
24 time .in our hotels because a lot of the businesses of course aren’t working.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
I’ve recently walked this site. I think it’s a best use of the site. I have been talking to a
number of the Council people about parks. I think anything we can do to add a park -
there are people across the street I think that would get their sandwiches, sit in this park
and eat, and then go back to Palo Alto Square.
The other thing, and final thing, is this is a wonderful site for transportation. It’s right on
the corridor of the Page Mill buses, the El Camino buses. The train station is very
close. And maybe you read what happened in Fremont Sunday night. A Hispanic lady
needed to get to work at a facility similar to this at 5:00 a.m. She never missed work.
She couldn’t get a ride. Her daughter says, "1 will walk with you." They’re walking
along, and at about 3:00 in the morning, 3:30 in the morning - the details are sketchy -
but some people in a car stopped, got a tree branch somehow, and beat these two
women to death - trying to get to work, a person who needed that kind of job. That
would never happen here because it’s on a transportation corridor with 24-hour
transportation. We need this kind of facility. Thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Anybody else want to speak to this topic? Seeing
none, we’ll bring it back to the Board for comments. David.
Cio; of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Board Member Solnick: Just one bit of clarity. This is the first formal submittal to the
ARB, is that right? Wasn’t the last one a preliminary?
Russ Reich: That’s correct. Yes, at the previous hearing, because the environmental
document wasn’t available, we didn’t want to formally go before the Board without
having that circulated, at least available to the public. So this is the first formal hearing.
Board Member Solnick: So it was sort of formal but informal I guess. First, just a
general comment having to do with the way this is all being presented. We got our
packet last week. We got another something handed to us a couple days ago, and then
something handed tous today with changes all along the way. And that, along with
some of the comments, has made me a little bit uncomfortable. I have the general
feeling that a lot of the design moves are being made somewhat arbitrarily, that there
isn’t a real strong conviction about various elements of the building. And this little bit of
waving in the breeze as far as materials and rationale for some of the changes that
have been made through those several steps. And I’m a strong believer that the
product reflects the process, and the process seems to be a little bit undirected at this
point.
Some specific things: It seems to me that on the height of the building, obviously that’s
an issue. We all know as designers that there’s absolute quantitative numbers
regarding height, but there’s also perception of height which is something that can be
controlled quite a bit.
21 I think you’ve done a decent job in several regards actually. One is I think there’s a lot
22 of movement of the building in and out on Sheridan. in the massing studies it’s really
23 highly articulated, l’m not even sure that’s the right word - it’s the opposite of flat and
24 you can really see that. It’s harder to see in the elevations, but in your massing studies
25 it’s very. clear. Even on the backside that’s true. It’s less so on El Camino, but you
26 might expect it to be less so on El Camino. And I also think you’ve done a pretty decent
27 job of stepping back on the north side to accommodate the condominiums.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
But I don’t think you’ve done a great job on the perception of a height to the building. I
think it looks at least as tall, if not taller, than it is. And I think that has to do with the fact
that the horizontal and verticals are being treated somewhat arbitrarily and not as tools
for mitigating the height, the perceived height of the building. Some specific examples -
I think the bays have a couple of problems. One is that they’re really emphasizing the
vertical and the height of the building. And their other problem is that they’re only
projecting out you said two feet which is going to make them look almost like a veneer
at this scale of building. Even two feet on a house is a fairly small move to make in a
plan move. But on this kind of scale it’s virtually none at all and then when it gets up to
the roof you have the hip roof returning back with this little tiny return, and I think those
are quite out of scale with the building. They certainly don’t do anything to make it feel
smaller. I would just make those moves bigger or not at all, preferably bigger.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
I
2
3
10
11
12
The materials - I think the brick is certainly a reasonable approach. I think your idea
that it could be installed more cleanly and carefully is probably true, than stone, and
certainly thinking ahead to the construction is a good thing. "
4 I have concerns about changing window colors in different parts of the building. I think
5 to some extent we’re all guilty of telling applicants to just break up the massing and
6 break up the fa£~ade and articulate it more, and i think sometimes what comes back,
7 people just say, "Well gee, we got to break it up, we got to break it up, we got to change
8 it; we got to make lots of variation." And when that’s not done purposefully it shows.
9 And I understanding that you’re responding to our comments and maybe staff
comments too in that regard, and it’s a common issue. So the window color was one
that seemed might - I was trying to picture this with two window colors and with all the
other variations going on, it seemed a little bit much.
13 in the entry, the third floors of glassed-in outdoor space, that was another example
14 where it seems to me you’re just making something look taller for reasons that weren’t
15 clear to me. It doesn’t sound like the windbreak was really the main issue there. It was
16 just to enlarge that element, and I’m not sure that that’s a benefit. Now it’s quite
17 recessed from the street, so that one’s probably not as critical as the bays.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The "tower" on the corner of El Camino and those other pyramid-roofed elements - I
would have liked to have actually seen a perspective from street level, because some of
these comments perhaps would go away. You’ve got the one rendering that’s probably
not at street level. It looks like we’re up about 15-20 feet, but we’re way back. So it’s
still hard for me to tell what this building is going to look like from the street. I don’t think
you’re going to see the roof on the top of that pyramid for example, on the comer. I
think that roofing there is probably irrelevant because the slope is so low and it’s pretty
high up there. But that element still feels very awkward to me, especially from the El
Camino side. It’s kind of not a tower and it’s not a bav. I like the idea that the brick
goes up it, that you go a second floor up there, third fioor up there. That probably
makes sense at that location and also deepens the windows to give that some strength
there; I think that makes sense. But I don’t understand the top of it. And I’m not sure
the comment about the previous version being more contemporary. I think the previous
version was actually more classical in the roof form than this one is. But this one is
seeming - the roof is basically the same as all the other roofs, but it’s just a little higher.
The fact that it’s standing seam I think is irrelevant because you won’t see it.
34 1 agree with one of the public speakers that the public benefit is still quite vague. I think
35 the public benefit as far as little pocket parks is very minimal, and maybe there’s only so
36 much site available here, I realize. But I think the other things, many of them sound like
37 there’s good intentions there, but without any details it’s hard to know what they mean.
38 I think the wording was in one case - we’re working with the El Camino Tree project.
39 I’m not really sure when that gets more specific and what it means to be "working with."
40 I’m still very unclear about the public benefit. I don’t doubt that there is some; I’m just
41 not clear what it is in detail.
Cit3, of Palo Alto Page 37
1 I certainly think there are many construction details that we would need to see before
2 approving this, at least from my point of view. We’ve talked about some of them, the
3 way.the siding and the windows come together and the roof details and the details of
4 the wall. I think that wall is very important, that "landscape wall" that unfortunately was
5 not shown on any of the drawings except for that. one rendering~ and then a detail that
6 we just got today at the end. The way that interaction, that wall with the street and the
7 patio - that’s a very nice element, but the details of it are very important.
8
9
10
We’ve got a lot of materials here and the way they all come together is going to make a
big difference in how this building looks, and we don’t have any of that yet. And it
sounds like a lot of them haven’t really been developed yet.
11 The lighting - actually I think the lighting, I guess you’re going to come back to us. But
12 that was another example where it just seems like it was really kind of waving in the
13 breeze again. We have two - and then another third alternative - that were just radically
14 different. And I’m not sure; maybe one of those was a mistake. One of them was
15 colonial, and I don’t know how that fits in with this building. ! just don’t understand
16 where the design essence is driving this project; I don’t feel it.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
I think that’s all my comments. Thank you:
Board Member Maran: Thanks David. Susan.
Board Member Eschweiler: I see that you certainly have been listening to what
everyone’s been saying, and I think that you’ve taken a lot of the comments to heart,
both from the neighbors in modifying your setbacks, moving the building closer to El
Camino and as David mentioned, articulating the building mass to a greater extent.
Some of the details are sketchy to us and we’re going on a lot of faith of about how they
may be worked out. Obviously it was a lot to accomplish in a couple weeks’ time.
One of the biggest things for me is I’m still not convinced that we have the right
materials on this building, the metal panel and the brick, l’m not sure how they go
together or complement each other. I think the colors are attractive but I’m not quite
sure about this type of articulated metal, why that is appropriate for what is a very well-
established and certainly not an inexpensive project. But l’m not sure that it has the
right connotation. Then there’s lots of issues about the detailing of it.
I like the direction that the roofs have been headed in. I’m not fond of the straight
parapet at the center there. I think that probably continuing the hip roof around would
be more appropriate. So there are quite a few details like that that I feel need to be
worked out.
35 Along El Camino I think we have, from the rendering, a nice view that implies a
36 continuity with the retail use along El Camino. Even though it isn’t retail use, the
37 awnings imply that. I have a concern though, as Judith was alluding to, that now we’re
38 looking into the kitchen and I thought we were talking about looking into the dining room
39 at our last meeting.. And if there’s some way to screen that so that it looks like retail
40 windows or if there have been other projects in Palo Alto where we have like a false -
Cio’ of .Palo Alto Page 3 8
1
2
3
like a box out and then there’s something that’s displayed in that box behind the
windows so that there’s something to look at as you’re going by, not just a screen of
blinds, that sort of thing.
And I’d even like to see those awnings wrapping around onto the east side. I think
you’ve put a lot of attention onto the El Camino side as we requested, but the east side
didn’t even get a color rendering. But as Drew pointed out, that’s going to be a major
facade and that maybe some of the details that have worked out on El Camino wrap
back to where the public park is so that it feels continuous as it goes around.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
I think the landscape plan seems very nicely detailed with a lot of different plant variety.
It seems it would be a very rich environment. There was talk about the pocket park,
about focal points. And if those focal points could be some kind of real artwork, not just
a bird feeder, but something that could be considered public art, I think that that would
certainly enrich that in being more. of a public benefit in those areas.
That’s all my comment for now.
Board Member Maran: Thank you Susan. Judith.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you. I tend to agree with my colleagues. I think that
this is a big project, it’s a PC request, and it’s going to have a major long-term impact
on the community. So I think it needs careful attention. I really think it’s going in the
right direction. I think it’s made great improvements over the previous presentation,
which I have to admit, I only saw in my office because I wasn’t here. But I think there
are some really major concerns that I would have. One is that as far as I can see, it
really doesn’t fit the El Camino guidelines for pedestrian experience in retail. And like
my colleagues, 1 have some qualms about the public benefits. But those two things I
think are actually going to go to the Planning and Transportation Commission, but we
are making recommendations to them, so we could recommend that they look at that.
Some of the things that I really like about the project have to do with the landscape
garden experience for the residents. I thought it was really lovely. I was pleased to see
the level of the LEED compliance, and I hope that some of those "maybes" get pushed
into the "yes" department.
1 was particularly impressed that the indoor air quality section was almost completely
compliant, which I thought was - as you said at marketing - but it’s better than
marketing, it’s a real experience. Somebody’s really going to get the benefit of that, so I
think that’s a really good thing.
I like the brick decision over the stone decision in a big way.
I like the variation in the windows because I think the building has a tendency to feel
large and monolithic, particularly in the fenestration, which for structural and other
reasons has to be fairly uniform. I think changing the color is a good response to that. I
agree that you ought to lose that second mullion - that’s such a minor thing, but I agree
with you about that.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 39
1 I don’t have a problem with the absolute height of the building. There are lots of four-
2 story buildings in that area. El Camino is being developed to tour stories, pretty much
3 all the way along. I’m more concerned with the experience ~ pedestrian level than
4 the fact that the building is tall.
What I think is that you have an evil gremlin in your office who is sabotaging your
graphics because i think that you are talking a much better project than we are seeing,
and I would really like to see a complete, consistent application that looks like the
building you intend to build rather than - "Oh, the paint brush didn’t work," or "Oh, our
printer made a mistake." How are we supposed to know that until you stand up here
and tell us.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
So when it comes back to us I would like for example
¯that the doors and the windows show up as doors and windows - where there’s
supposed to be doors they show up as doors so that we know how they relate to
the windows;
¯that we have a proposed light fixture - one proposed light fixture - that goes with
the building appropriately;
¯that the awnings are submitted both in what the materials are and how they’re
supposed to look in the end and how they’re attached to the building;
¯that if you’re going to use a multiplicity of materials we need to see how they
interface - if you’re going to have a cornice, what it looks like, if you’re going to
have a water table, what it looks like - so that we know when the building is built,
that all the parts a. going to fit together;
¯and when the sigr comes back, that it fits in with the building and that you’re sure
that it’s compliant with the sign ordinance.
think that was al! the bits and pieces that I was concerned with. Thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, Judith. Ken.
Board Member Komber,q: l’m in concurrence with my colleagues. I think David did a
very good to start it out and setting up the things that are true of the presentation that
we got and materials that we got. It’s very difficult for me to also put everything together
and imagine what you actually mean. I think I agree with Judith that it’s in the right
direction. I think you’ve done an excellent job of incorporating a lot of the comments.
But it has that "committee design" look to it, and I think it needs to be put together
coherently.
35 I think the landscape plan is very nice; it’s fairly richly studied. The way it’s integrated
36 with the architecture will have to be something that’s done in the development that
37 proceeds from here.
38
39
4O
To keep this brief, because I think almost everything’s been covered, I would just like to
look at one thing, which is El Camino Real. El Camino Real elevation looks to me like a
derivation of the rest of the building. And when you address in your written portion
Oty of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
"regionally appropriate," I would plead that you not be regionally appropriate with E1
Camino Real. I don’t see anything that’s appropriate about something that’s
anachronistic, and I think it’s more important that you realize that the impact of El
Camino Real, I’ve lived here over 40 years, and I think I’ve gone down Sheridan twice
and El Camino Real more times that I could ever want to imagine. And that’s the major
impact that that building will have. And so I think you should treat El Camino Real like
what it needs to make that an inspiring and important component of Palo Alto, and I
don’t think it does that right now. I think it doesn’t look as much like a back door as it
did before, but it doesn’t look like something important or that would be inspirational and
a good influence on future architecture that’s going to happen at that area. Thank you.
Board Member Maran: Thanks, Ken. I agree with my colleagues’ comments. I’m in
support of the project and I find that it’s developing in a positive direction. I would like to
make a motion to approve the project with conditions, though I would have a.difficult
time stating what those conditions are. Let me say what conditions I know I want to
propose; that is the project come back to us on consent with a LEED project checklist
as a follow-up, a commitment to a LEED project checklist as opposed to simply an
effort. I would also ask that the project as a condition come back to us a year after
completion of construction with a follow-up on the LEED project checklist for our benefit
and the benefit of future projects to be able to evaluate the cost and feasibiiity of various
LEED project checklist points.
Would anybody like to suggest other conditions or put their comments into the form of
conditions that could be added to my motion.
Board Member Wasserman: I can help you make a list. The problem is that it’s a long
list and I’m not sure that it’s appropriate to approve the project with that long a list of
conditions, especially since some of them would involve possibly some redesign, at
least on the El Camino side, and perhaps even on the east elevation. So !’m not sure
that this is approvable at this point. I would prefer to continue it, because there is such
a long list of conditions. We do vote on these things. There might be other people who
are willing to approve it at this point. But I can start the list because [ had started the
list.
Male Speaker: Could you make another motion unless there’s a second for Drew’s?
Board Member Wasserman: Oh, is there a second?
Board Member Maran: 1 believe what I’ve asked for are additional conditions before the
motion is seconded so that we can complete the motion. And if there are none, then I’ll
ask for a second on the motion as I proposed it. Would anybody else like to propose
conditions to be added to my motion? None. So my motion is to approve the project
with conditions, including
¯additional details to be brought back to us on design elements, including the El
Camino fagade;
¯further development and details on the exterior materials;
Cio’ of Paio Alto Page 41
1 ¯the LEED checklist commitment that I mentioned earlier.
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
So that is my motion. Is there a second t: that motion?
Board Member Eschweiler: I’ll second it.
Board Member Maran: Okay, so we do have a second. Any comment on the motion
before we put it to a vote?
Board Member Wasserman: Yes, I think it’s premature.
Board Member Kornber.q: I concur. I couldn’t come up with in the next hour or so the
things that I think we need to put together to make this to the point that I think I could
approve it.
Board Member Maran: Okay. Any other comments?
Board Member Solnick: I agree with that. I think there’s really a strong sense that this
is a wonderful project and that the use is a wonderful use. Certainly the comments that
I’m making are not in any way intended to increase the price of the project. I think often
the applicants go away and think, "Oh, my God; we just got to add more expensive
details." That’s certainly not my intention at all. But I agree. I think there’s too many
things to approve it with conditions at this point.
Board Member Maran: Okay. Any other comments? So that motion has been
seconded. We’ll put it to a vote. All those in favor, say Aye.
Board Members Moran & Eschweiler: Aye
Board Member Maran: All those opposed?
Board members Komberq. Wassermann, Solnick: Opposed
Board Member Maran: So that motion fails 3-2. Shall we have further discussion?
Board Member Wasserman: Well why don’t we just make the other proposal and see
what happens, that we continue it with the following conditions:
¯that what is now a LEED checklist becomes a commitment to LEED certification;
¯that the El Camino and east elevations get re-examined with more attention to
the El Camino design guidelines and the fact that the east elevation is going to
be a major viewing point;
¯that we get details of the connections between the materials;
¯that we get consistency in the intentions of whether certain things are doors or
windows on the ground floor;
¯that we get a light fixture proposal that is truly proposed;
¯that we get the correct design material, color, and fastenings for the awnings;
City of Palo Aho Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2,9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
¯if the sign is going to be included, that it be consistent with the building and
compliant with the sign ordinance.
Any~l~ing else anybody’s got?
Board Member Solnick: Did you mention a complete material board?
Board Member Wasserman: Yes; I think that would be a really good idea, including the
Hardy panel and everything else you are thinking of. And loose pieces are acceptable.
Board Member Maran: Any other comments or additions to that motion?
Board Member Komber.q: No, I can second that motion.
Board Member Maran: Okay. The motion’s been seconded. Any other discussion?
Okay, we’ll put it to a vote. The motion is to continue the project...
Board Member Wasserman: With the conditions.
Board Member Maran: With the conditions.
Board Member Wasserman: Oh, yeah; sorry. The fence be drawn in such a way that
we understand what it’s going to look like. If there’s going to be artwork, let’s know.
You don’t have to have it in your pocket, but let’s know where it’s going and what your
intentions are for that.
Board Member Solnick: May I add - this isn’t really an amendment- but a lot of
comments were made by the Board members, and if those could be given to the
applicant, might help guide them more carefully, because i think the problem I had was
that there are just too many things and it’s too unclear how everything goes together.
Board Member Eschweiler: I have a question to fellow Board members. I raised the
issue about the appropriateness of the metal panel. And I just wonder what everybody
else thought about that.
Board Member Wasserman: I don’t have a whole lot of problem with the metal panel in
the proposed color, because I think the colors blend and it doesn’t bother me. I like the
standing seam roof as an accent. I thought that was a nice touch. I thought the idea of
calling out the fourth floor in another material was fine and I think this one’s okay,
personally.
Board Member Eschweiler: But the fourth floor metal and then it comes down the bay
window base.
Board Member Wasserman: Yeah, I think that can be very interesting.
Cio’ of Pa!o Alto t~age 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Board Member Solnick: Yeah, I didn’t have a specific problem with it being metal,
particularly because of this section. It’s got a lot of depth to it and articulation. I’m not
even sure it’ll read as metal in that, depending on the color.
Board Member Kornber,q: I think metal, if it’s done well, it would be okay. I thought that
the rendering that we got isn’t a very good representation of what that metal will look
like, that it looked more like wood or something more residential. So I think it would be
helpful to get a good read on how the vertical shadowing will work and how it’ll be
detailed. But i think the real problem is going to be how you detailed around the
windows because they don’t have the depth, the profile, that that particular panel has
and I think that’s what makes it work.
Board Member Maran: And l’m also in support of the metal as long as it isn’t installed in
a way that imitates or tries to look like wood so that it can stand out as a material unto
itself.
Board Member Eschweiler: So perhaps we could add also as a condition -well you
already talked about how the materials would be detailed. If the applicant could also
bring in examples of other places you might have seen this, or something that would be
convincing of how this will look. Because I agree, the current elevations look like it’s
Hardy board just turned sideways. ! can’t really tell what the difference is.
Board Member Maran: Okay, so we have...
Board Member Wasserman: Evict the gremlins.
Board Member Maran: We have a motion to continue. Shall we put it to a vote? Ready
to do that. Okay.
Russ Reich: The Board may want to consider continuing the item to a date certain. Our
next two meetings in March, perhaps, would be March 4 and March 18. You may also
choose to continue to a date uncertain based upon applicant’s...
Board Member Wasserman: if this is continued to the first meeting in March, does that
give the applicant still time to make the Planning Commission meeting that’s on the
12th?
Amy French. Proiect Planner: I would think the changes you’re suggesting, or the
details you’re requesting I should say, are something that could be incorporated. It’s not
a change in massing or something that’s so significant that the Planning Commission
needs your input on that. They would be geeing verbatim minutes from this meeting as
well as verbatim minutes from the next meeting. And I guess we just need to determine
if that can be turned around.
Board Member Wasserman: I think they’re going to be really interested in El Camino.
Ci~’ of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
~ I
42
43
44
45
46
Amy French: So you can leave that up to us as to when the Planning Commission
meeting...
Board Member Wasserman: Yes, okay; but I would like to suggest that if we do continue
it to a date certain, that we continue it to a date certain before it’s scheduled for the
Planning Commission. Then it’s up to you guys whether.they make it or not, or up to
them whether they make it or not. And nobody’s going to get on our case.
Amy French: Or that would be I guess the second meeting of February. But is that
technically feasible for the applicant? I doubt it. So March 4 would be the soonest.
Board Member Maran: Shall we ask the applicant if that’s possible? We’re talking two
weeks from today.
[off-mike discussions by applicant]
Board Member Wasserman: I hope we continue it to March 4.
Mr. McDevitt: Would March 4 still allow us to get on the Planning Commission for March
10?
Amy French: It’s very hard at best.
Mr. McDevitt: And then the next date for the ARB would be February...
Ms. French: We do have a meeting date in March, the end of March, for Planning
Commission. So it’s two weeks after March 12.
Mr. McDevitt: Then March 4 I think would be the date that we would like to go for,
please.
Board Member Wasserman: 1’11 add that to my motion. It’s my second, or accepted.
Board Member Solnick: I accept.
Board Member Maran: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
Board Members: Aye.
Board Member Maran: All those opposed:
Board Members: [none opposed]
Board Member Maran: That motion to continue to a date certain passes 5-0.
Cio’ q/’Paio Alto ]~age 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
City of Palo Alto Page 46
2
3
4
5
6
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 47
ARCHITECT~ REVIEW BOARD HEARJNG Page 1 of 24
Reich,-Russ
From:Spotwood, Alicia
Sent:Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:37 AM
To:Reich, Russ
Subject:03-04-04 2701 ECR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes
March 4, 2004
2701 El Camino Real [03-PC-02] [03-ARB-05] [03-EIA-15]: Request by Sunrise Development
Inc. on behalf of Morris Page Mill LLC for a planned community zone change for a 82,000
square-foot senior assisted living facility with one level of underground parking and associated
site improvements, zone district CN and RM-40.
Board Member Judith Wasserman: The environmental assessment, they have filed a mitigated
negative declaration prepared. This is a major project. The applicant has ten minutes. This is
their staff report.
Mr. Russ Reich, Associate Planner: Good morning Chair Wasserman and Board members.
The application before you this morning has been reviewed by the ARB on your meetings of
December 18 and February 5. At the previous hearing, the ARB asked the applicant to return
to the Board with the following:
¯Details of the connections between the various materials proposed for the building;
¯A single proposal for a light fixture;
¯Information about the awning system including proposed colors, rhaterials, and framing
details;
¯Information regarding the proposed sign;
¯A complete material board including a sample of the Hardy board material.
¯Drawings of the proposed fencing; and
¯A photographic example of buildings where the metal siding material has been used.
The Board has also requested the applicant
¯Attempt to reach the certified rating on the LEED checklist
¯Re-examine the east and south elevations of the building.
The applicant has provided this information and is here today to review it with you.
I would like to note that the applicant has asked that the last item on the list of proposed public
benefits be removed. There’s been much discussion about the provision of access to the VTA
site from the Sunrise site. Staff and the applicant agree that the future access to the VTA site
property at the southeast corner of the Sunrise site would be a detriment to the project and
while it may be somewhat helpful to a future development of the VTA site it would not be a
3,Q5/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW’BO~ IIEAR.ING Page 2 of 24
significant public benefit. It would eliminate or significantly modify the proposed landscape
amenity area at this location.
The applicant is here to make a brief ten-minute presentation and answer any questions you
may have.
Just a small note as well, I had a request from a member of the public - if you could speak into
your mikes; they had trouble hearing you at times. Thank you.
Board Member Wasserman: ! will do my best..So now the applicant has-ten minutes to make
his presentation.
Mr. Dan Zemanek, Sunrise Development: Chair person Wasserman, Board members, l’m Dan
Zemanek from Sunrise. Thank you very much. This is our third appearance, as you know.
We started in December, in February, and now we’re back here in March. What I would like to
do is go back to some of the comments that Russ Reich made in his report and talk about
some of your concerns. I have outlined them on two slides and hopefully l’ve covered
everything from LEED certification to the photos of the ribbed metal siding in use. Obviously,
Gerry McDevitt from Methoon, our architect is here; Linda Gates is here from David Gates &
Associates to answer any questions that you might have after I’m finished. I want to do a little
bit of a review.
Just to remind you of what we’re talking about, this obviously is El Camino, this is the frontage
along our property along El Camino, and this is Sheridan. These are the Silverwood
condominiums here.
This is looking in the opposite direction, looking toward Sheridan. This is the Don Sherwood
Golf and Tennis, this is our property with the fence around it, the VTA bus stop, which we’ll talk
about here a little bit, ~nd the VTA lot which is over to the right. You can tell it’s kind of bleak
at this time in the development process.
This is what we hope to create. We hope to create something that is going to allow people to
want to walk that particular area of El Camino Real. We want to create a quiet space here
where a person can sit down, get under some kind of a shelter like an umbrella from the sun or
the rain. And this could serve either people in the neighborhood, possibly some of our
residents, as well as people who are going to be accessing the VTA bus from the bus stop
which is just adjacent to the property.
The other thing that we talked about was the south elevation and the concerns of this building
being right on El Camino. What we have done since you saw it last is we have moved this
turret up to the front and we have created a building that looks like it belongs on El Camino
rather than as one of you Board members said in an earlier meeting that it looks more like an
end than it does a building.
l’ve tried to show a comparison of where we were when we came here originally on December
18, what happened at the last meeting on February 5, and where we’re winding up with the
building today and the building that we’re asking you to approve today as well.
Obviously from the rendering, this is the building.
What I want to do now is take you back to the east side of the building which is something that
we weren’t showing at the February 5 meeting and how this is working on these perspective
3/25/2004
.ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 3 of 24
drawings. Obviously this is more for massing. We’re not showing all of the landscaping
elements here.. But this again is El Camino Real. This is Sheridan, the V’I’A lot, and the bus
stop.
A little more height and we’re moving farther east, and we’re starting to pick up some of the
details of the building along the east side.
And now we’re at ground level. This is the last of the slides, but we’re close to the corner of El
Camino Real and Page Mill Road, so we’re seeing the east elevation and the south elevation
of the building.
This is actually the intersection of Page Mill and El Camino. This is the 410 Sheridan building
which is right across the street from us. You see Silverwood up here, the VTA lot here, the
bus stop is right here, and our property is here. There’s a large tree that’s currently there at
the VTA bus stop today which will probably cover some of our building on the view from El
Camino and Page Mill.
We also talked about concerns with details of material connections, and I’m not going to go
through these. Gerry can answer question on them, but we do have a sufficient quantity of
these, especially the last two I showed you where we’re showing how the metal is meeting
either a wood trim piece or in the former one, a concrete banding.
Then the other concern was showing consistency where you wanted to see that windows were
windows and doors were doors. I hope in your packet that you notice that from the genesis of
this building as we move forward, the floor plans and the elevations are matching and you can
tel! where windows are and where doors are.
Again, the same way here in this slide, taking you from December 18 through March 4.
There was also a concern at the last meeting regarding the lighting schedule. In your packet
you do see the fixtures that are being used. Those are going to be the fixtures. This is the
lighting plan with the various areas identified where various light fixtures will be going.
Awnings - Gerry is going to be covering the awnings, the design material, color, and the
fastenings.
Then I want to talk about the sign application. The sign that we will be using is going to be a
sandblasted wood oval. It will be a green background. Gerry has a sample of what the green
will be like with white lettering. And we’ll have the plinths to match the fencing that we’ve got
on the project, and it’s a very substantial sign. We had a rider that was under it. We
understand that we are not allowed to have a rider under the sign. I obliterated this in
PowerPoint. That’s not what it’s going to look like, but I just had to gray it out.
The complete material board -that will be circulating this morning.
And then we had concerns about the various fencing details which Gerry can cover.
And now I want to make a couple of comments about public art. I had a discussion with Board
member Wasserman regarding what we wanted to do and how we wanted to do it from the
standpoint of what we wanted to do from a public art standpoint. We have at least three
choices that I can see, and that is that the first thing we thought we would do is we would do
something clever with the wrought iron that’s part of the fencing material, much like it was done
3/2512004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEAkR.ING .Page 4 ot 24
in downtown Paio Alto with the leaves. And then we thought maybe what we would do is we
would do something with the VTA bus stop and maybe enhance the V’[’A bus stop because as
you could tell, it’s kind of a droll looking thing. And then of course.the third thing v ch is
always the fallback position is to get a piece of free-standing art and to do somethi~g with it.
We have made a contact with the Palo Alto Arts Commission and we’ve got hopefully a
meeting that will be set up for next week some time. We want to discuss - whatever we’re
going to do, we want to have a theme where it’s either going to be something about seniors,
it’s going .to be something for seniors, it’s going to be something maybe done by seniors for
seniors, but that it would be something that would be synergisticwith what we’re trying to
build. It’s a work in progress and it’s going to take us some time to evolve as to what this is
actually going to be, but we are very much committed to providing this. And when we talk
about a free-standing piece of a~ we would maybe have the possibility of putting it in any one
of a few locations, either in the t~o little mini parks that we’re trying to create, or in front of the
building, wherever it would get the most visibility.
And then finally, there was a concern last time about seeing actual pictures of the ribbed metal
material. And Gerry can run through these, but we did bring photographs of the material in
actual use and of course, you see them also in the sample board.
That’s my presentation. I want to thank you very much for giving us this time. We hope that
we have met with all of your concerns, and we look forward to an approval and we look
forward to a successful development here.
There’s one thing that I do want to mention. The LEED certification. We are very much
committed to moving toward a LEED certification. We have no idea what that means in
dollars, and we would never know what that meant in dollars until we actually got the plans and
we put the plans out to bid to see what it’s going to mean.
One of the things that I noticed on the conditions last time, it read that what is now a LEED
checklist becomes a commitment to LEED certification. And as you can tell from your packet,
we’re at a 26 now which is the minimum amount of points for LEED certification. Again - and I
had a discussion with Drew Maran about this a couple of months ago regarding this LEEDs -
it’s something new for us, even though.we do a lot of the things already in the natural course of
our design.
We don’t know what it’s going to cost. All we can make a commitment to you is that we’re
going to work towards LEED certification and if we get there, it would be wonderful. We may
fall short. All I’m asking you to do is just don’t condition us that we have to be LEED certified.
We will give it everything we’ve got to get there, I promise you that. Thank you.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you very much. We will have questions. We’ll start with
Susan.
Board Member Susan Eschweiler: My first question is you just handed me a picture of a sign.
This is intended to show the center oval?
Mr. Zemanek: Just the center oval, just for color purposes.
Board Member Eschweiler: I’ll pass that on. And you said Gerry would be presenting...
Mr. Zemanek: Yes, Gerry will take questions and answers, and everybody’s available here for
3/25!2004
AR _CHrI~CTURAL REVIEW_BOARD HEARING Page 5 of 24
that.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. So question about the materials on the building. If the
architect could please run us through the current proposed materials and colors.
Gerry McDevitt, Methoon Architect.~: Good morning. 1 have a few things I should bring up, just
so you can put your hands on them. One of them is the Hardy plank material; the other is the
awning material, capstone for wall caps and that belt line at the top of the first floor, and detail
window color. I’m going to bring those up; they’re a little clumsy, but we can move them
through.
Board Member Wasserman: Are these the actual colors that you’re going to use? is this the
actual color of this?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, that’s a prefinished [incoherent].
Board Member Wasserman: in that color?
Mr. McDevitt: [off mike comments; incoherent]
Board Member Eschweiler: First we’re looking at awnings, the first packet that you passed up
here. And there’s a whole selection here. Can you tell us which are the colors?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, one of the awnings thatwe typically use, the materials is made by that
Sumbrella Corporation.
Board Member Eschweiler: Sumbrella Fire Resist plus?
Mr. McDevitt: Fire resist; we prefer the plus in the black color.
Board Member Eschweiler: In black.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And the examples that are shown here as well as the one we nailed down
a few weeks ago show the ends of the awnings open. Those would be closed, that’s the only
difference. So we have a fabric material on the sides.
Board Member Eschweiter: So similar to this, one in the lower corner, but rather than to be
open, which is fairly contemporary, it would be closed, which is a little more traditional.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: And the black awnings then are against the brick that you have
here, correct?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: The awnings only occur against the brick material, is that true?
Mr. McDevitt: That’s correct. They occur along the south elevation as the building turns along
the west elevation to where it returns at the entry court. And then on the east elevation they
occur at the recess, the landscaped small park, to the point of the relocated corner tower.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. And since we’re talking about the brick and you passed on
3/25/2004
windows, I guess these are the window samples?
Mr. McDevitt: I want to talk about a slight revision. There’s a color board with two colors of
windows. We had a putty color and a dark bronze color. We want to revise that to have the
putty co}or occur in the metal siding field so that whole fourth floor and the face of the bays is a
putty color instead of the dark color. And then the field window which is I the Hardy material
would be the lighter ofgwhite color.
Board Member Eschweiler: Which lighter off-white color? I thought this was putty. It’s not
putty?
Mr. McDevitt: [off mike]
Board Member Eschweiler: So the bronze color is lost entirely? Okay, so you’ve gone up one
step basically. Okay.
Mr. McDevitt: And that’s the actual color.
Board Member Eschweiler: Whose windows are these? Anderson. Thanks.
Mr. McDevitt: [off mike]
Board Member Eschweiler: Yes, but I’m having trouble comprehending what it’s all going to
look like.
Mr. McDevitt: [off mike]
Board Member Eschweiler: Can we pull these apart? I guess we can’t; they’re pretty on there.
Board Member Wasserman: Can you take the hand mike, please? Because I think our
audience is going to miss out on a lot.
Board Member Eschweiler: So to clarify, you’ve got the two window samples and you’re
suggesting that this top one called ¾" white would be the windows that occur in this metal
finish? Am I following along?
Mr. McDevitt: [trouble with mike]
Board Member Eschweiler: Oh, sand tone here is with this?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, and we’ll be using the larger sizes. This is meant to be indicating color
only. It’ll be a 7/8".
Board Member Eschweiler: So the second size.
Mr. McDevitt: For the window divisions on the 400 series window. And of course the frames
themselves are built up to be a couple of inches.
Board Member Eschweiler: So I’m following along now - the sand tone color goes with the
metal panel, so these two colors together.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
3/25/2004
ARCHITEC~ REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 7 of 24
Board Member Eschweiler: And then the white goes with this Hardy board color?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And this is the trim.
Board Member Eschweiler: So this white trim ....
Mr. McDevitt: White is only
Board Member Eschweiler:
Mr. McDevitt: Of course it’ll
adjacent to this.
White is adjacent to this.
be a wide window.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. And what about at the brick?
Mr. McDevitt: The brick is right now the white also.
Board Member Eschweiler: With trim? No trim?
Mr. McDevitt: No, it’s got a brick mold detail, so it’s the window plus a small articulated brick
mold. Because it’s inside it’s not a face trim, it’s in the thickness of the wall.
Board Member Eschweiler: So something that’s changed since last time from this older color
board. We no longer have the dark bronze windows, we no longer have this color meta.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes you do. This is the same. The only change is this became white, this
became putty. So we moved this one down here.
Board Member Eschweiler: Right, but this is not the same color as that, is it.
Mr. McDevitt: It’s a match. This is actually the color and it was sprayed on and if you lay it flat
it should be the same.
Board Member Eschweiler: Can I take this apart?
Mr. McDevitt: It’s the fluorescent lighting perhaps. Do you want me to stay here?
Board Member Wasserman: As long as you have the mike you can stay here.
Board Member Eschweiler: Then on the roof materials we have...
Mr. McDevitt: ...laminated shingles for the bulk of the high roof. And then at the corner towers
we have standing seam, and at the low entry ports we have the standing seam metal roof.
And that’s a vertical batten. They’re fairly small profile, 16" on center. So you see it here and
here.
Board Member Eschweiler: And then that’s complemented by the black awnings which are
kind of similar I character.
Mr. McDevitt: And the black awnings aren’t as black as the color black suggests there - like a
charcoal black outside. And that’s just because they’re fabric, not a rubber, so they diffuse the
light a bit. They look good.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. Any other questions about materials?
3/25/2004
ARCtffITECTURAL REVIEWBOARD HEA.RING Page 8 of 24
Board Member Wasserman: Actually I think that’s really a good idea. If either of us have
questions about colors, let’s finish up on the colors and then we can go on individually. Ken,
do you have more questions about the colors?
Board Member Kornberg: No, those were the questions I had.
Board Member Wasserman: Is this the limit of Anderson’s palette? They don’t have a white
that’s closer to that?
Mr. McDevitt:- That’s the limit because it’s a vinyl cladding..tf it were aluminum we could get a
custom color, but we wouldn’t recommend trying to apply color to vinyl.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, and this is what they offer you? Thanks.
Board Member Eschweiler: I had a question about the access to the V’I-A lot, but that’s come
off the public benefits list. Is there something else in its place?
Mr. Zemanek: You bring up a very important topic. It’s very long and complicated, but we have
been negotiating with the City since February 24 regarding the inclusionary housing and the
BMR (below market rate) units and the fact that we had no obligation to include goods and
services. We are doing that now. And as I stand here today, the contribution that we are
making to the people that would be coming in in an inclusionary housing capacity will exceed
$30 million for the life of the project. It’s huge, there is no other complex in the state of
California that’s doing this. Typicallyit only happens when you’ve got bond financing or if the
city is making a substantial contribution to assist in the in.clusionary housing. We will have a
tremendous public benefit financially in that aspect alone. And the difficulty that we saw with
the V-I’A, at first it sounded like a very interesting idea. We had discussed this with staff early
on. And then as we began thinking about it, here we’re trying to create these wonderful mini
parks and we’re trying to do all of this wonderful aesthetics, and then all of a sudden the VTA
decides that they’re going to do a development there, they’re going to want to access the
property, they’re going to want to take a piece of our property which would have to be the mini
park in the southeastern portion of the property and convert it.into an asphalt driveway - I don’t
think anybody would be in favor of that. So we decided that just from a practical standpoint
alone, and from what else we’re doing for public benefit, this is just really miniscule. So that’s
why it’s been dropped.
Board Member Eschweiler: That was my thought also, is the driveway, was it really going to be
to pave in green space to get to the parking lot. So you clarified that. Thank you.
Mr. Zemanek: And then also the VTA has access already onto EI.Camino Real. They have
access all the way onto Page Mill as well or the Embarcadero.
Board Member Eschweiler: My next question is about square footage. In the staff report it
referred to a project of 82,000 square feet and yet, also in the staff report, in that little chart,
compared to the proposed PC project it talked about 63,000 square feet.
Mr. Reich: The difference in the square footage is that the larger number includes the square
footage of the parking garage. The other number is just the above-ground square footage.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. And then a!so in the chart that compares RM-40 to
proposed PC project it talks about common open space and then private open space, and it
gives this proposed project zero square feet for private open space, but it seemed that we did
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 9 of 24
have private open space.
Mr. Reich: Private space in regards of having individual units having their own balconies or
patios was zero. There will be a significant amount of private open space for the residents of
the project, basically around the back and side of the building.
Board Member Eschweiler: And the upper balconies. There are two or three outdoor terraces.
Mr. Reich: Those are common to people within the building. They aren’t specific to any
individual occupant of any room. That’s why it isn’t listed as a pdvate space.
Board Member Eschweiler: I see; okay - super private. One of the other questions Iguess is
back to the materials issue - if the architect could please explain the design thought behind
having so many different materials on this building. Is there a particular overriding concept,
what you’re trying to achieve, a look and feel that you’re trying to create?
Mr. McDevitt: Thequestion is why are there so many materials on the project?
Board Member Eschweiler: Yes.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay. We felt that at the more tactile areas where the pedestrians are close to
the building, especially along the south elevation, El Camino, that we want to have a brick
veneer and a thick wall which is expressive of brick. And we brought it up at the accent points
of the building, called the corner towers. Then we have a field siding which is the bulk of the
building .that is in the back plane that we have speced as the Hardy material. And we have a
fourth floor that we felt strongly should not be the same as the other floors but it should be
appearing more penthouse-like than as a fourth floor, so we differentiated that to another
material that we preferred over the use of stucco or board and batten or something contrasting
the Hardy material. In this case it was the metal siding which we feel is much more tailored
and appropriate in terms of being more contemporary on this building than the other two
materials. And we wanted to accent the projecting bays, there’s a number of them.
Essentially they encapsulate two rooms or one large room in various locations along the length
of each fa#ade. So with that, 1 think I’ve covered the siding materials.
The window choices, we have essentially two types of windows, or you can say three if you
wanted to include the ground floor windows where we have the taller expression with
transoms. But the essential difference between the light windows and the dark windows is that
we wanted to create a rhythm on the fa.cade to where we weren’t using the same window for
the two distinctly different siding types, the metal and the Hardy. The predominant window is
the white window in the field, and I think I described that enough. The putty colored window is
a lower contrast, but it’s used within the metal siding.
We feel that the roofing is a fairly comfortable low key color, compatible with the colors of the
exterior siding in that warm gray laminate shingle. It’s a high quality, shingle, it’s about a 35-4.0
year expected life on the shingle. The metal roofing is more a simple accent that we think
enriches the building in terms of helping those corners a little bit more and really creating a
little more of a refined quality to the entry courtyard. So we’ve used the metal roofing only on
those two locations.
The awnings we felt were an addition to help the building at the corner closest to the south,
both the southwest, southeast, and south fa,cades where the common areas are essentially
located.
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTUR_AL RE~ BOARD HEAR!NG Page 10 of 24
Taller windows - we’re not retail, we’re notdoing a mixed use building, but we want to express
those uses that are within the building that are closest to what might constitute mixed use, the
restaurant space and the entertainment areas of the building. Within those areas the lighting is
much nicer, there’s much more of a hospitality character when viewed from outside to the
inside, and that’s where the greatest population of the residents are who spend a good part of
their day in there, looking out to the street activity.
We also paid special attention to the areas that really are the same as where the awnings are
used with the small patios, with the more detailed small fence enclosures that provide some
limited privacy from the busy street corner. They’re 36" high, they’re very well done brick
masonry with a pre-cast cap and a metalwork infield between. That also occurs after the entry
court along the west elevation where the drive ramp is, but the drive ramp is a negative
expression rather than a positive thing, so it really is not visible from the pedestrian point of
view unless you come up and look over it like that, because of adequate landscaping and
details like that wall.
1 could keep going, but have 1 covered it?
Board Member Eschweiler: A key part of the question that’s not been answered yet is why this
building has brick and lapped Hardy board siding and vertical metal siding, given that brick is
very traditional, it evokes images of Harvard Yard. And then you have metal siding which
evokes images of farm buildings in the San Joachim Valley, and then you have horizontal
siding which is a more traditional residential look. How do these three things - why are they all
coming together on this building when we’re trying to make a unified design statement?
Mr. McDevitt: First of all, the first elevations that we showed from December showed a stone
that we felt Was the eclectic look and it didn’t seem as appropriate. Brick which occurred in the
last two presentations is a little more of a contemporary masonry application. We used brick
and metal siding on this building in the Tacoma waterfront. I think brick, if it’s used right, is
very tailored as opposed to what the laid-up stone would have been. I think it’s a
complementary material for mixed use. What you see below that’s not really included in my
slide is a bunch of storefronts along the pedestrian promenade on the waterfront. So brick
seems fine as a more contemporary use of masonry. I refer to some of the schools of the ’90s
and 2000s, Perkins and Willdiz for example, they have very contemporary applications of
brick. So I don’t think of brick as historic always. So we felt okay with brick.
The metal panel - yes, it’s a more contemporary expression, certainly in this case where we’re
using three different colors of it. This building is intended to be very soaring. It’s a derelict
waterfront, very industrial. Of course, this building is very industrial in character, but on
purpose. We think that there is some reason to use it because it’s a more tailored material and
more successful than stucco. We use too much stucco, certainly here, not as much in the
Northwest. And some of the wood-like products, I think we have enough of that on this
building. The intent is that it appear very residential, and I think we’ve accomplished that with
the Hardy and the wrap -’"- ....:-" .....""-"u~ u ,= w,~ ,u~w~ L, ,-,~ we call the field windows. =~’ ’:,.-,, we wanted to push
it a little bit, and that’s why we have probably a one end metal siding and at the other end
brick, and we’re trying to blend the three key materials, which I think we’ve done.
Board Member Eschweiler:. But why?
Mr. McDevitt: Well, then architecture becomes a subjective decision-making process. We
have a lot of palettes that wecould have chosen from. We made a decision., designers and
3/25/2004
ARCI-~TECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEAR1NG Page 11 of 24
clients, not to use stucco. We made a decision not to use vertical board and batten for where
we used metal siding. We think it’s a right decision, it’s a subjective decision There’s nothing
that guides us, there’s no guidelines that tell us to use that, but we think it s the right decision.
Board Member Eschweiler: And you’re showing the contrast of vertical ribbed metal siding and
the horizontal, so you have the two - you’ve got vertical rib and you’ve got horizontal rib, and
then you’ve got brick texture which has got both vertical and horizontal in it.
Mr. McDevitt: It’s more of a modeled flash range. The contrast or the direction of the
patterning is intentional. One of them is fairly-fine and the lap siding is fine in terms of its
dimensional rib spacing on the metal. But the depth of the siding itself is fairly deep. The
horizontal siding, you can see from the sample, is 6" expressed lap, but it’s very shallow, it’s
½" at its lap joint.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. Other questions - I guess I don’t have any other at this time.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you Susan. Ken.
Board Member Ken Kornberg: I just have a couple. One is have you worked out the fire
apparatus and where it’s going to end up on the project, the yoke and the connection, do you
know?
Mr. McDevitt: No. We’ve only identified fire access and we know we’ll have standpipes in both
stairs and we’ll have a fire control panel.
Board Member Kornberg: I just worry about the outside. If you go around Palo Alto you’ll see
that the fire department seems to win the aesthetic battles, and I was hoping you had found a
place that you could put it which would be satisfactory to them and still wouldn’t have too much
of an impact on the main exposures.
Mr. McDevitt: So far our contact at this stage of the design process per the schematic is we
work with Mr. Gordon Simpkin. He seems very accommodating and I think if we made a
strong recommendation we might get it. I think the more serious one is where the risers are for
sprinklers and that kind of thing that creep up. We’ve covered transformers and we covered
generators and that kind of thing, so I hope we’re covered with the big equipment that might
scare us at the end.
Board Member Komberg: And the other, the water meters and the gas meters? They often
end up as not well thought out or integrated into the design.
Mr. McDevitt: I share the same concerns you do. We will try to make sure that we coordinate
exactly where it is. But I don’t think that’s something that we should ever leave as an
oversight.
Board Member Kornberg: 1 had a question about the sign. Is this a logo that you’re married to?
Mr. McDevitt: That’s a logo that Sunrise uses on al! their buildings in some variation.
Board Member Kornberg: Is there any variation that you’ve used that looks more integrated to
all the design elements that you’ve been working with on this project?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, there is. There has been other than the wood sandblasted substrate for
3/25/2004
A!~.CHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 12 of 24
example.
Board Member Kornber.cl: And also, is there going to be a street number on the sign, or some
identification to delivery people, or people for the first time looking for an address? I don’t see
it. ’
Mr. McDevitt: Typically it’s on the building, and typically it’s more closely associated with the
entry and not always attached to the sign.
Board Member Kornberg: So you don’t have one planned for this sign?
Mr. McDevitt: Not yet. VVhat we hope to accomplish right after this is to get all of our
consultants together and have some serious meetings with the various departments of the City
and start coordinating what the address is. I think Sunrise prefers the Sheridan or El Camino
address. I think Sheridan. That’s where our entry would be, so we need to move into that step
soon.
Board Member Kornber,q: i have one other question which is the awning material that you’ve
selected, the Sumbrelta has a five-year limited warranty.
Mr. McDevitt: Sunrise has agreed that this is a material that doesn’t last as long as say roofing
and at some interval it’ll have to be replaced.
Board Member Kornberg: Yes, I agree.
Mr. McDevitt: Otherwise it has to be a metal awning or something like that which has a
different character, but it can be expected to last the life of the building.
Board Member Kornberg: Russ or staff- do you have any normal agreement? I’m mostly
worried about the El Camino side that it gets so much wear from the wind and the dust and
rubber and stuff like that.
Mr. Reich: I’ve actually worked on a project where they have chosen a fabric awning and we
conditioned an approval that the awnings shall be maintained such that if they get old or
deteriorated or need to be cleaned, that they will do that. We will have the ability through code
enforcement and condition and monitoring specifically with the PC. I believe they audit them
every two years, PC monitoring, l’m not sure the specific number of years between
monitoring, but code enforcement has a program where they monitor all PC approvals and
they can go out and if the awnings are in a state of deterioration they can require that they
replace them.
Board Member Kornberg: Have you don’t that in Palo Alto?
Mr. Reich: I haven’t seen where that’s done. I’m not actually involved in that end of code
enforcement.
Board Member Kornberg: That’s all my questions. Thank you.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you, Ken. I have a few questions as well. To follow up on
the sign, so you have some signs that have different materials that would fit into this concept
better. Is there any sign that’s not an oval pendant that ends by a box, something that’s more
rectangular that fits the design?
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTUILAL REVIEW BOARD }{EARING Page 13 of 24
Mr. McDevitt: I’m not able to recall any - that’s a corporate identity logo that they prefer to
use. And we as architects always strive to keep the buildings more regionally appropriate.
And if there’s some of those elements that they feel strongly about, that’s okay. But don’t try to
make the buildings a!l the same. So we felt the sign was - we can change the armature, how
the sign is held.
Board Member Wasserman: I see what you’re saying. Okay. I have a vocabulary question.
There is something that you call "window boxes," but they look to me like balcony railings.
Could you .explain what those are?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. You can see them in the perspective sketch. These are shallow, 1’ to 1.6",
in this case we have it detailed as 1’3" projection. It’s relatively low. Its intended height is only
about a foot and a half and it’s supposed to be below the view line of the resident who’s
normally inside sitting or low. And its function is to provide a residential character to the
building in a place where potted plants could be located.
Board Member Wasserman: And the railing itself is not enclosed on the inside? In other
words, this is not something you fill with dirt and plant, it’s something you put pots on and you
can see the pots from outside through the railing.
Mr. McDevitt: Absolutely, yes.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, thank you, that clarifies that.
Mr. McDevitt: And it’s a lot lighter looking and it’s drainable as a stiff grate at the bottom.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, great. The follow-up on Susan’s question about the VTA
access. The elimination of that access doesn’t change the comer park. That’s still there?
Mr. McDevitt: The corner park is there and hopefully because of that it will stay there.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, good. That answers that question. In your detail about the
brick veneer, that was detail #3, it does not show a corner brick detail: It shows a brick veneer
that doesn’t look at all like real brick corners. Is that your true intention? I thought we were
getting brick veneer corners.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. That’s a plan view.
Board Member Wasserman: The brick does not turn the corner. You have a grout line down
the edge.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. We would never try to miter it. There would be a full width brick and then a
full width brick.
Board Member Wasserman: That’s not what it shows.
Mr. McDevitt: Well, it’s a schematic detail at this point, but it will be...
Board Member Wasserman: So this is full brick veneer, this is not thin brick veneer.
Mr. McDevitt: Oh, no. This is full brick. This is laid up with the full brick laid flat with enough
room to put your hands behind it. We don’t like brick veneer, that tile-like application.
ARCHITEC~ REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 14 of 24
Board Member Wasserman: Oh. good. Neither do I. I have a question about the LEED
rating. How are you going to decide which of the ’,maybes" become "yeses"?
Mr. Zemanek: That’s a great question. The maybes you’re talking about, not the 26. I think
one of the biggest hurdles will be getting to the 26. I would be very happy if we got the 26.
The maybes, we’ve talked about a batch of those at various meetings. Some of those are very
difficult. We’re going to try everything, but I will be just pleased if we get certified.
Board Member Wasserman: How will you decide on the basis of these discussions, which of
them...Is it going to be straight money?
Mr. Zemanek: We counseled on photo voltaic with the City. And even the person that we
talked to said it’s a lot of money, it’s very difficult to justify in some of these cases, spending
that kind of money. That’s how it’s going to be determined, really.
Board Member Wasserman: So it’s a straight economic decision.
Mr. Zemanek: It’s going to be a lot of economics involved.
Mr. McDevitt: We’ve shown also 26 in the "yes" category and 22 maybe. And I fully expect that
when we get into doing an analysis of this and the actual general contractor on board who
feels strongly that he can make a commitment this way but not that way, we may pull some of
those back and forth. If we got all the yeses and all of the maybes, we’d have this tremendous
platinum building. I don’t think that’ll happen, but the 26 is listed as the minimum because
that’s what we needed to show, and a lot of maybes. We emphasize the low-hanging fruit
concept where the straightforward ones, we’ve all checked those off and we accept those, but
some of the more difficult ones that prove to be low value other than public relations perhaps,
like photovoltaics, they don’t add anything more than one point, if that, but it costs the most of
anything on here except for some of the recycle categories perhaps.
Board Member Wasserman: Just out of morbid curiosity, is this the latest LEED list, because I
know that they’ve upgraded their...
Mr. McDevitt: This is 2.1.
Board Member Wasserman: It is 2.1. Okay, thanks.
Mr. McDevitt: Actually, this list is 2.0. They’re essentially the same, it’s just the descriptions
are a little different on 2.0 to 2.1.
Board Member Wasserman: Okay, thank you. I have a question about the lights that you
selected for this project that are included in this packet. These are unshielded light fixtures
with exposed light bulbs, and I was wondering what brought you to the conclusion that that
was the right fixture to use.
Mr. McDevitt: Well, we have several lights shown. We have the Ballard(?) lights that are
providing the bulk of the site lighting, and we have the equivalent to step lights, but they’re low
level HID lights in the drive aisle down. Those two provide a higher intensity of lighting, and
they’re shielded from throwing light upward or glaring in your face. The other lights are more
decorative, and they are a low level incandescent bulb that’s behind the modeled glass shield,
and they’re really to evoke a residential arrival, for example driving into the courtyard. The
sconces are low light level when you come up. The intent is they’re comfortable at your face
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 15 of 24
and not HID on purpose.
Board Member Wasserman: Yes, these are 100W bulbs unshielded?
Mr. McDevitt: At most, yes. They could be 60W, that’s a maximum size, the 100W. It didn’t
feel like the heavily iouvered commercial fixture was what we needed here. It was intended to
be very residential. And when you walk up to elegant homes or small hotels, there’s not a HID
light source at this height.
Board Member Wasserman: That’s true, and.there probably aren’t bare bulbs at eye level
either. So that was the answer to that question. I think that’s all the questions that I have.
Does anybody else have any more questions?
Board Member Kornberg: I have one other I forgot to ask, sorry. Looking at the east elevation,
it’s hard to describe, but if you look at where the tower is on the El Camino side, adjacent to
that are three vertical windows, and these are windows that are off that interior stair- it’s not
actually, they’re actually between units, i was wondering how you could have windows there,
it’s nice to have them.
Mr. McDevitt: So if I’m looking at the second floor plan for example, the corner unit, 480 square
feet next to the small single?
Board Member Kornberg: You’re looking at the second floor? It looks to me like it’s the 480
and then right at the demising wall between the 480 and the 360 is where this window occurs.
Mr. McDevitt: I think our intent would bethat we would modify that wall one way or the other
when we get into refining this so that we can incorporate that window, because we feel it’s
important.
Board Member Kornberg: Yes, you need it on the elevation but I don’t see how you do it on the
interior.
Mr. McDevitt: I think we can load it to one side or the other of that relief.
Board Member Kornberg: So you’d adjust the demising wall?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Kornberg: And then in the same elevation to the opposite side where you have
the roof access stair tower...
Mr. McDevitt: Are you on a different elevation?
Board Member Kornberg: I’m still on the east elevation. I was hoping, and we talked about
before trying to get glass and natural iight into that portion of the corridor on those two floors,
and there’s just not much window there. Can you add some more window to try to get it
brighter?
Mr. McDevitt: I want to show you where we have - I’ll just go back to the second floor to the
south of the corner tower that’s along the east elevation.
Board Member Kornberg: I was actually looking on the north side - the south of the corner
ARCHITECTUR_4L REVIE~ BOARD HEARING Page 16 of 24
tower?
Mr. McDevitt: There’s a large window all the way up, maybe the third floor shows it better, that
is in that relief between the bay and the corner tower.
Board Member Kornberg: I’m talking about column line nine. There’s a stair tower there. What
you’re showing on the exterior elevation I think about a 1’ or 2’ window for that whole two
floors.
Mr. McDevitt: Well that’s a two-hour rated enclosure.
Board Member Kornberg: But not on the exterior opening.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay, I see what you mean.
Board Member Kornberg: So what we were talking about before is trying to get light into that
end of the corridor.
Mr. McDevitt: What we have done, really with emphasis on the third floor, is we’ve opened up
the end of that corridor.
Board Member Kornberg: No, I don’t see that. It’s surrounded by single units.
Mr. McDevitt: Right here - this is a small den, quiet room right here that is glazed and it goes
out to a small patio.
Board Member Kornberg: That’s good.
Mr. McDevitt: But you’re right. There’s not a lot of window shown on the stair. It’s not perhaps
the most used, it’s an intercommunicating stair by staff at most. That door right there will
always be closed.
Board Member Kornberg: I was thinking on the second and the fourth floor where it’s
surrounded by units, that that’s a really dark...
Mr. McDevitt: But still, it would throw a lot of light into the stairwell which no one would
appreciate, and then it won’t make it into the corridor.
Board Member Kornberg: You can’t use firelight or something on those two levels just to get
some of that light at the end? It’s not that expensive.
Mr. McDevitt: No, we use firelight a lot. I’m sure we could. We could increase the size of the
windows and we could use firelight. We use firelight for all of the areas like staff room and
activity spaces, the wellness. It’s very expensive compared to what other glazing systems
,’.’,~.+ but ~÷’~ wel! warranted.
Board Member Kornberg: I think in these two locations on the second and the fourth floor
would make a big difference.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay, yes.
Board Member Kornber.q: That’s all I have, Judith. Thank you.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 17 of 24
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you Ken. Susan, you have any more?
Board Member Eschweiler: Yes I do. On the exterior elevation in the rendering, there is at the
center portion...
Mr. McDevitt: Which elevation?
Board Member Eschweiler: West elevation to be clear. I have some questions about the west
elevation. You have projections for a stair tower and you have a projection for the elevator
tower, and then in the middle of this elevation, just tothe.left of the entry, there’s a chimney.
What is the purpose of that?
Mr. McDevitt: The chimney is where we have some of the gas fireplaces on the way up.
Board Member Eschweiler: So there actually are fireplaces. It’s an expression of...
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. Got to have one. We try to let the fireplace look traditional and not just
side vent it. We can use bigger fireplaces that way, too.
Board Member Eschweiler: So units on that side have fireplaces and others don’t?
Mr. McDevitt: Actually the fireplace locations are in common areas. So the room called the
"parlor" at the first floor and the room called the "living room" at the third floor are the only two
locations that we have fireplaces.
Board Member Eschweiler: And they’re stacked. Okay, thank you. At the center portion where
you have the wind-screened terrace and then above that, there is a parapet. On the west
elevation it’s shown as a parapet. I believe in the rendering it shows it as a horizontal railing.
Could you clarify the intention.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes, right here?
Board Member Eschweiler: Yes.
Mr. McDevitt: ...as opposed to how we show it on...
Board Member Eschweiler: Right. And in earlier schemes it was just roof form laminate, the
dark shingle roofing wrapping around.
Mr. McDevitt: Right now we’re showing it as a low parapet with a railing just because we’re
also emulating the same detail that we’re using right here. That detail which is a low parapet
with the horizontal two-foot projection, that’s the same detail that you see right up here. So it’s
a continuity...
Board Member Eschweiler: So there’s a cornice piece and then a two-foot projection and then
a railing on top of it.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. And what we’re not showing of course is that way back there’s a simple
line that indicates the height of the roof at the back side of the building, but that would not be
visible from any point on the west.
Board Member Eschweiler: But don’t we have some mechanical units and things up there that
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTUR.AL~ P,.!3VIEW BOARD HEAtLING Page 18 of 24
need screening and that’s what the .stepped roofs are affected?
Mr. McDevitt: But they’re not right there, that’s cleared out.
Board Member Eschweiler: So you’re doing that as an architectural change?
Mr. McDevitt: We wanted to provide some relief to where the building is not one continuous
long roof form. And in plan we’ve accomplished that by this deep recess at the entry which
breaks right here and comes back out right here, and then it’s articulated by that glazed
octagonal area here. But we felt that wecould break that large roof and bring it down a little
bit, then pick it up on the other side.
Board Member Eschweiler: But that’s not expressed on the other side.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s right, but only you and I know that or anybody in a helicopter. Anyone at
eye level or walking or driving perceives it as a divided look from the west. And the intent was
that this pedestrian experience and the rhythm of the building and trying to minimize the bulk
and size to the neighborhood was what we are trying to accomplish, and I think we’ve done
that on Sheridan.
Board Member Eschweiler: But then this cornice, actually it was one of my next questions -
the cornice that’s shown, you referenced this detail is to be similar to the balcony detail at the
fourth floor there. And in the packet all of the elevations show that cornice piece as a very
large projection with big shadow underneath it, maybe two feet; it’s almost the same as the
two-foot projection for the vertical room elements, and yet there was no detail about that in the
packet. Could you please explain that.
Mr. McDevitt: The place that the detail would occur would be in a schematic way on slide #5.
This little detail right here, we need to show that enlarged. You could probably see it a little
better in your packet, right there. But we have the ability to do that easily because of framing
with the floor, framing with the wall, to cantilever that 18-inch or 2-foot element. If the shadow
is too big, that’s unfortunate, but it wouldn’t be anything larger than two feet horizontal
maximum.
Board Member Eschweiler: What is the material that that cornice would be?
Mr. McDevitt: I can explain that clearly. Let’s go back to the large-scale elevation in your
packet. The fascia of that would be built-up trim to match what’s on the left. That’s a running
face trim that divides the Hardy from the metal siding, for a typical fourth floor.
Board Member Eschweiler: So that’s the wood cornice if you compare it to the pro-cast cornice
-it’s not really a cornice, but...
Mr. McDevitt: Yes. This is the wood cornice, correct. The only pro-cast work is right here.
This earlier was shown as pro-cast, but in this conceptual detailing we realize we’re going to
have that transition be more seamless and not try to change materials right there. But the
underside of the soffit will be exterior ~’.:,psum sheathing, and the top of it is going to have a
metal flash. It’s not going to be pervious material, it’ll flash underneath the siding above right
here, and it’ll become a little drip at the face, much like a fiat roof parapet would be. There
won’t be any kind of a cant strip or anything trying to retain water in there, it’s going to sheet
off.
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 19 of 24
Board Member Eschweiler: Essentially it becomes a wood band that wraps around at that...
Mr. McDevitt: But it projects out, yes. It projects out, it only occurs where it flanks these bays,
and you can see that from the implied shadow right here. And the shadow looks a little strong
for how far it sticks out.
Board Member Eschweiler: So the intention is that the face of that is at the face of the vertical
metal panel?
Mr. McDevitt: No, it is not. -It’s recessed back. We don’t want to try to match those up. It’s
held back about six inches. That’s why I said 18 inches, metal panels stick out two feet.
Earlier you might have noticed we had a band across here, but it was looking too tender and if
we tried to really align two materials like that it wasn’t what we really want to try to accomplish.
That detail, that’s okay. That detail occurs where we don’t have brick at the base, and that
also occurs up high. Yes, you’re right Dan, but the dimension right here is probably going to
be a little smaller. But that detail right there, in terms of height of this element, it aligns exactly
with the pre-cast detail. That’s number 46. That detail we use where we have brick veneer
and there’s a distinct step back to where the siding occurs above, whether it be metal or
Hardy. And the wood detail we just saw is in the same plane but it really, as you look around
the east side of the building, once we turn the corner past the Silverwood we terminate the
brick on the east elevation. Then that wood band runs.
Board Member Eschweiler: So the brick doesn’t continue across the east elevation at the first
floor.
Mr. McDevitt: Right.
Board Member Eschweiler: Why is that? Why wouldn’t the brick continue?
Mr. McDevitt: Why do we not use brick back there? It’s a fair question. It’s economy. It’s most
appreciated where it’s public and we terminate the brick right here, and we terminate the brick
right there. We felt like you can see it and it was an integral part of the composition between
the Silverwood and the Sunrise building, so it wraps around on the north and of course on El
Camino we felt very strongly that brick should be continued all the way to this point. In fact, we
raised the brick up where we use it the full height of the first story. And when it hadn’t
introduced the cast stone cap to that so that it’s done well, we don’t introduce brick that stops
at three feet and then end up with siding and then some kind of band above it as we showed in
the earliest drawings of December.
Board Member Eschweiler: Could you go back to the enlarged color elevation please.
Question, one more time - could you run us through which colors of windows and trim are
where.
Mr. McDevitt: We’re calling this the field siding. This is the predominant siding throughout
most of the building that occurs on both sides of this bay. We’re calling this the fourth floor or
penthouse, which is metal siding, we’re calling the projecting bay down to the second floor line
where we use metal siding. That area on the fourth floor and this area has the putty-colored
windows. This area, this area, and the bulk of the building around as well as all of this and
this, it’s the white windows. And those are set in without face trim. There’s a brick mold detail
that occurs outside the window frame, but it’s within a thick wall expression. This gets the
putty-colored window, so there’s a difference right there to there, but it’s anchored by the
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL .REVIEW BO~ HEARING Page 20 of 24
change of siding.
Board Member Eschweiler: And where is the yellow trim?
Mr. McDevitt: Right here. Right there, right there, right there, there, that little band right there,
right there. This is the cast stone color that matches this and all of this stuff and the sills that
¯ we use in all the brick, right there and right there.
Board Member Eschweiler: So any of the painted wood - it’s painted wood, isn’t it? The
painted wood gets the yellowish trim.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: Against the white windows, against the ochre-colored Hardy board.
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: And that projecting piece that we talked about, that’s the yellow
trim as well as the edge of the roof line?
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Board Member Eschweiler: As it wraps the entire building, not as it changes with the - it’s
always in front of metal panel, I believe.
Mr. McDevitt: Correct. That’s the continuity item, this horizontal banding that occurs as well as
the punched windows.
Board Member Eschweiler: Okay. And on that same elevation you talked about the planter
railing detail, you were describing that. And on the third floor it has space for the brackets that
you’re showing but on the second floor you don’t have the space for the brackets because of
the concrete cornice.
Mr. McDevitt: That’s right. But we don’t need the brackets for structural...
Board Member Eschweiler: All right. Thank you.
Mr. McDevitt: Also the intended metalwork here would match the color of these balconies.
Board Member Wasserman: Any other questions from the Board? Okay, we’ll now hear
comments from the public. I have one card from Angelica Volterra. You have five minutes.
Ms. Angelica Volterra: Hello. My name is Angelica Volterra. Thank you for letting me speak.
It’s been impossible for a number of other members of the public to attend this morning
because of work commitments, so I would appreciate having the opportunity to spend just a bit
more time than the allotted time reviewing some of the project’s impacts as it sounds like I’m
the only member here to speak.
The proposed Sunrise project would create considerable impacts with respect to traffic and
parking, impacts which are inadequately reviewed and disclosed in the final traffic analysis
dated January 2004 and the mitigated NegDec which is the environmental document that was
circulated. It’s important that you all realize that because your review of this project depends
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 21 of 24
on having an accurate and adequate environmental study.
l.’ve reviewed various versions of the traffic analysis that has been submitted. The problems
including errors and inaccuracies I’ve discovered in connection with traffic-related documents
have been troubling, as these problems affect the quality and reliability of information that is
reported, in my opinion the traffic report and the mitigated NegDec are not adequate. The
traffic impact report studies three other Sunrise facilities in San Mateo, Sunnyvale, and
Petaluma to generate traffic data that it then uses to provide information regarding traffic at the
proposed Palo Alto facility. The traffic report relies on data sources such as sign-in sheets that
provide inaccurate information.
Trip routing data presented in the report is inaccurate. Assertions made in connection with at
least eight of the sixteen trip routes discussed in this report are incorrect based on my
experience and the experience of residents of the adjacent Silverwood complex. This was
corroborated through a questionnaire that was submitted to residents of Silverwood. Using
correct trip route information when new trip generation figures are calculated, the new
calculations show that the project will have a significant impact on Sheridan.
The report provides no substantial evidence to support the project trip distribution’s data it
presents. The project will result in significant traffic impacts on Sheridan and will substantially
increase traffic on this narrow local street.
The project would create significant parking impacts on Sheridan, already often parked to
capacity as demonstrated by photos I submitted to you at the last meeting. Many visitors and
probably staff members as well would regularly use on-street parking along Sheridan, which
would exacerbate parking demand and congestion. The proposed facility would reduce the
amount of available on-street parking. The Sunrise driveway eliminates much needed space
along Sheridan, further exacerbating the parking situation. The methodology used to
determine parking demand apparently relies on inadequate and inaccurate information and
therefore likely underestimates parking impacts.
Deliveries to the proposed project will occur on Sheridan despite the El Camino loading zone
which is a condition of approval, thus impacting the street. And the traffic report and mitigated
NegDec fail to adequately consider this impact. If the address is changed from El Camino to
Sh.eridan, there will be substantial traffic impacts that result. Sunrise fai ed to disclose to the
neighborhood their interest in changing the address. There’ll be a definite increase in delivery
vehicles to the site if the address becomes Sheridan. There are a considerable number of
deliveries to supply almost 100 residents plus staff each week, over 2100 meals a week, UPS,
FedEx, mail. And while I was at the Belmont facility during a publicly noticed meeting on
behalf of the planning and transportation commission, we were told that all deliveries occur at
another entrance to the building, not the main entrance. But while we were at the building, we
watched as a UPS truck drove up to the main entrance and spent considerable amount of time
unloading at the wrong entrance, and no one from the facility tried to correct this. So we
believe, that there will be, while .~r~.~.~--~- .....v-. some of the larger trucks may pull up to El "--"--%~11 I III I£J, alot of the smaller delivery trucks will no doubt double park, which is their habit now, to already
deliver things along Sheridan. So we believe they will continue to do that.
The impacts on traffic circulation, parking, and safety in the project area and on residents of
the project area during the prolonged construction period of the proposed facility are not
analyzed in the environment documents, and these issues should be addressed before project
approval.
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 22 of 24
The project provides inadequate public benefits to justify the plan community rezone
requested. At the ARB meeting of February 5 there were concems expressed regarding the
vagueness of the language and the lack of specificity and detail regarding the project’s
purported public benefits as well as the lack of substantive public benefits provided. This is
especially true given the huge exigency(?) with respect to zoning and the significant benefits
being provided to the owner of the property and the developer and the profits that will accrue to
them as a result of a plan community zoning requested.
In the current staff report there have not been very substantial changes made to provide more
substantive public benefits. Also, in an important number of cases the language remains
vague with inadequate detail provided to enable adequate assessment. For example, that
small public area on El Camino will likely not be used by many people other than potentially
bus riders waiting for the buses. The public art again is vague.
Board Member Wasserman: Could you wrap it up, please.
Ms. Volterra: The BMR issue, there is inadequate information for us to really adequately
assess it and when they talk about $30 million over the life of the project, they aren’t really
providing us with substantive information.
The V’I-A lot issue, this project will actually negatively impact that lot’s ability to be developed.
Mr. Zemanek just stated that they would have driveways in and out of El Camino and Page
Mill. But if that’s the case, why didn’t this project, which is addressed on El Camino, have the
main driveway on El Camino. We’re concerned about that.
So again, there are quite a number - we do believe that the public benefits are inadequate to
justify this planned community. One more thing - Surprise is a very profitable company. Last
August a Web site for the company boasted about the quarter’s financial results. They
"claimed" that revenue grew 179% over a year ago and net income for the quarter increased
41%. So we’d really appreciate your consideration of these matters. Thank you so much.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you very much. Okay, we will now return to the Board for
comments and a motion. Susan.
Board Member Eschweiler: Well, as you may have gathered from my line of questioning about
the materials of the building, I am still troubled by the design intent and multiplicity of materials
on the building, the horizontal and the verticals and the contrast of the traditional brick, even
used in a contemporary form but in contrast to the metal siding. I don’t find it appealing, I find
it confused and unresolved in a number of manners. Simple things like the light fixture that
you’ve selected is a very antique looking light fixture and yet you’re telling me that it goes on
the brick and the brick is to be in a contemporarily detailed mode. So I find that it’s not
resolved to my way of thinking and that the whole effect is one of not being a resolved design,
that the verticals and horizontals seem somewhat arbitrary and the application of colors are
also arbitrary.
I don’t care for the white windows. I think your window selection before was better, and I find
that we’ve introduced yet more variety to this, and I don’t feel that it’s effective. So I would
suggest that there’s additional study needed on that.
Board Member Kornberg: I have struggled with the design for a long time, but I think at this
point I don’t feel it’s appropriate to ask the client to go back and start over, and I think that
3/25/2004
ARCHITEC’IT_IR.,a~ REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 23 of 24
they’ve done a lot as far as trying to help with questions that we’ve had over the last few
months. I have concerns about minor items, but I don’t think they’re significant enough to hold
up the project and I think in general l’m in support of it. I think the quality of the detailing which
was what I was concerned about mostly at the last presentation shows that there is going to be
a concerted effort to handle a lot of the very difficult detailing. I don’t think it’s all shown at this
point, but based on the details that l’ve seen, it’s in the right direction.
I guess the general style isn’t something that I think is important to Palo Alto, but I think it’s
something we have to accept at this point. I think the variety of materials is actually helpful to
the mass and scale of this building. And in something homogeneous this side sitting on E!
Camino, I don’t think would really help El Camino. I think. El Camino has the eclectic nature
already embedded in its past. And the fact that the zoning isn’t consistent enough and the
planning guidelines aren’t well enough developed really pushes it towards this kind of eclectic
shape and use of materials, and I think that’s unfortunately important for this kind of structure
here.
I have questions about the signage. I’d rather see something that looks like it’s appropriate to
this building than appropriate to just Sunrise. And I think if we come to a motion- I have several
conditions I would like to add, just to pick up some loose ends that Susan has mentioned and
that I’ve seen myself.
Board Member Wasserman: Why don’t you make your motion with your conditions.
Board Member Kornberg: I move that we approve with the following conditions:
1. The windows on the east elevation, column line 4.5, be coordinated so that they can
stay and that we don’t have demising walls in the middle of those windows.
2. The windows on column line 9 be enlarged so that we get adequate light in those
stairwells so that it can benefit the second and fourth floors so that firelight be added on
the interior walls of those stairwells.
o
The sign be returned for consent review so that it be more compatible with the spirit of
the materials and the nature of the project.
The detailing be provided, I’ll get on consent calendar. I see a lot of places where the
horizontal detailing hits the vertical channels, and I don’t know how you do that, but I
think it needs to be resolved.
5. 1 also think the address should stay on El Camino Real. I think that’s an important
aspect of the project, that the deliveries be on El Camino, not on Sheridan.
6. I’d also like to see the fire apparatus, the utility apparatus returned for consent review
because I think they’re going to have an important impact on the project.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you, Ken. My comments. I generally support Ken’s
viewpoint. 1 had some concerns about the materials. When I finally got the concept I realized
that there was a logic to the design of this building, that it was perhaps not the logic I would
have used, but it was logic nonetheless. Therefore, that made some sense to me.
1 would like to add to the conditions that I agree with Susan about
3/25/2004
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Page 24 of 24
7. The color of the windows -.1 think that white doesn’t go with anything, and I would just
go back to the original putty and bronze window combinations.
The last concern that i have has to do with
the light fixtures. Not only are they very traditional looking compared to the stated
contemporary concept, but there are plenty of light fixtures out there that are not
industrial HID lights that have shielded light bulbs. And I think that exposed light bulbs
are not as suitable for the public right of way at all. I can think of several manufacturers
of resident light fixtures that are opaque and shine up and down, some of them even
have perforations in them that look kind of cool, all kinds of things - metal ones,
ceramic ones, even things with more opaque glass where you don’t see the light
bulbs. I think that needs to come back on consent as well.
And then I would second the motion to approve with conditions. Any further comments on the
motion? Okay. All in favor of the motion:
in favor: [Board Members Wasserman and Kornberg]
Opposed: [Board Member Eschweiler]
Board Member Wasserman: So we have two in favor, one opposed, two people absent.
However, that adds up. That gives us an approval because we have a majority of a quorum.
So we got a bunch of stuff to come back on consent. And one of the conditions I believe from
before was that a year from now when you’re built out, we get a report of what your LEED
rating finally was, what you did and how you turned out at the end.
Thank you very much. Good luck to you.
3/25/2004
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
Thursday, April 1, 2004
REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Drew Maran (Chair)
Judith Wasserman (Vice Chair)
Kenneth Kornberg
Susan Eschweiler
David SoInick
Staff Liaison:
Steven Turner, Planner
Staff:
Am3, French, Manager of Current Planning
Alicia Spotwood, Staff Secretau,
Russ Reich, Associate Planner
Chris Riordan, Planner
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pleasebe advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:
¯Announce agenda item
¯Open public hearing
¯Staff recommendation
¯Applicant presentation - Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board.
¯Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff
¯Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes
depending on large number of speakers per item.
¯ ,Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes
¯Close public hearing
¯Motions/recommendations by the Board
¯Final vote
¯The Director’s decision will be posted at the Downtown Library
Page
CONTINUANCES
The Architectural Review Board will review the agenda at or around 10:00 A.M. to determine if the
remaining items on the agenda can be completed by 12:00 Noon. In the event that the ARB
determines that specific items will not be heard at today’s meeting, review of such items will be
continued to a date certain.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board
reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
Angelica Volterra: Stated her concern regarding traffic and parking and regarding cumulative traffic
impacts with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. The minutes of March 18, 2004 were approved (5-0-0-0, Board
member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board member Kornberg) with correction to item # 2
Architectural Review Board Action b) to replace the word taller with larger, and correction to a)
to add (address the reflectivity of the metal surface to make certain that glare off the building is
not objectionable or unsafe to motorists, pedestrians or neighbors and if necessary).
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
The Board will heard item #3 second and item # 2 will be heard last because one
Board member has a conflict of interest with 2300 Bayshore.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board approved the changes, (5-0-0-0, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by Board
member Maran).
CONSENT CALENrl)AR
2701 E1 Camino Real [03-PC-02, 03-ARB-05, 03-EIA-15] Request by Sunrise Development Inc.
on behalf of Morris Page Mill, LLC for a Planned Community Zone Change for an 82,390 square
foot senior assisted living facility with one level of undergound parking and associated site
improvements. Zone District: CN and RM-40. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the revised plans and for, yard
them to the City Council.
Page 2
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (3-0-2-0, Board member Kornberg moved, seconded
by Board member Wasserman, Board member Maran and Solnick abstained).
UNFINISHED BUSLNESS
2300 E. Bayshore Road [03-D-04, 03-EIA-17] Application by Clifford Chang on behalf of Richard
Peery for Site and Desig-n review of a new 73,932 square foot office building and related site
improvements located on a 5.66 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore. Zone District: LM (D)(3).
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) forward the project and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) (Attachment K) to the City Council with a recommendation for approva! of a Site
and Design application for a new office building in the LM (D)(3) (Limited Industrial Site Combing)
District, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment L).
Public Testimony:
Angeilica Volterra: PO Box 1724, Palo Alto: Stated her concern regarding the review of the project by
the Planning Commission before the (MND) had been circulated.
Tony Carrasco, 4216 Darlington Court: Stated his opinion that the project was good for the area.
Dick Perry, 2200 Cowper Street: Stated his opinion that he and his architects had worked on the
project, and had come up with a good design for the building.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended denial of the project, (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved, seconded by
Board member Solnick, Board member Kornberg absent due to conflict of interest).
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings (Minor)
735 Emerson Street [04-ARB-11, 04-HRB-01] Application by Hayes Group Architecture on behalf
of Tom Harrin~on for Architectural Review of a fa~cade remodel, including the addition of industrial
transom windows, aluminum canopies, aluminum storefront window system, clear glass doors, a
limestone base and other site improvements. Zone District: RT-35. Environmental Assessment:
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Section 15301.
Staff Recommendation:
Page 3
Attachment H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
September 1 O, 2003
EXCERPT
Chair Griffin: This is 2701 E1 Carnino Real, which is a request by Sunrise Development for a
Planned Community project to allow an 80,577 senior assisted living facility. This is the only
agenda item we have before us tonight. It is subject to the Council’s disclosure policy because it
is a quasi-judicial item. I will poll the Commissioners for their disclosures.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
2701 El Camino Real*: Request by Sunrise Development Inc. for a proposed
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to Service Commercial from Neighborhood
Commercial and Multiple Family Residential and a Planned Community Zone change to
allow an 80,577 square foot senior assisted living facility comprised of 81 living units on
an approximate one acre lot currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and High
Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40). SR Weblink:
http://www.ci _tyofpaloalto.or~cityagenda/publish/planning-transportation-meetin gs/2370 .pdf
Chair Griffin: Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: I did visit the site.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Nothing to disclose.
Chair Griffin: I toovisited the site. Could we have a Staff presentation, please?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Thank you, Chair Griffin and Commissioners. As you
mentioned this is an application, which includes a Comprehensive Plan Map designation
amendment and a Planned Community Zone change. This is the initial hearing for the Planned
Community Zone change so this is an opportunity for the Commission to ask questions, make
initial comments, talk about any initial concerns that you have with the application and with the
project as currently proposed. As noted it is a one-acre parcel at the comer of E1 Camino Real
and Sheridan Avenue. It is proposed for an 81 unit assisted living senior living facility. It would
include about 81,000 square feet of floor area, however, only about 60,000 of that is living area
the remaining is underground parking and drive isles for a total of 81,000 square feet.
There would be approximately four stories in the building and it would be about 45 feet tall,
slightly less than 45 feet tall. I think on some of your drawings there was a drafting error, which
showed it at 49 feet tall, it is about 45 feet tall.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Currently it is designated as a housing opportunity site in the Housing Element, which was
recently adopted. The current Comprehensive Plan Map designations are twofold. The first
third of the site is designated as a Neighborhood Commercial land use. The back two-thirds is a
Multiple Family land use designation. The current zoning corresponds to those Comprehensive
Plan designations. The first third is a Neighborhood Commercial zone and the back two-thirds is
an RM-40 Multiple Family Residential up to 40 units per acre zone.
Neither the Comp Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance now define this type of assisted senior living
facility nor does the Comp Plan provide development standards for this type of facility. That is
one of the reasons why the applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to
include the entire site in a Commercial Service land use designation. The Commercial Service
land use designation allows residential use but it does not have an upper limit on the floor area or
density for any project that might have a residential component in it. It provides an upper limit
of floor area for a commercial component but not for the residential component. So it is one of
the only land use map designations that would allow a.density of this nature that is being
proposed.
In addition, the applicant is proposing a Planned Community zone in order to regulate the use,
which would be for senior facilities, assisted living, and would regulate the number of units. So
the density, the FAR, the land uses would be regulated through the PC zone and not through the
Comp Plan Map designation. Currently the proposal is for about a 1.5 floor area ratio. The
housing would be unique, as I mentioned, it would be for senior, frail and disabled elderly
population. Part of the unique nature of that kind of a land use is that it doesn’t generate as much
need for.parking or trip generation as a standard or typical multiple family residential project.
The applicant, I know, wants to go into a little more detail about this but they have done studies
on their other facilities that show very few of the residents own cars and there is a far less trip
generation as a result of that.
There is a BMR component to this proposal. Currently 11 of the units and the services that go
with those units are proposed to be provided at a below market rate. Again in a standard
multiple family project the number would be close to 12 however because this is a unique facility
and the services as well as the units themselves would all be provided at a below market rate the
11 has been proposed and discussed with our Housing Manager to date because it is a more far-
reaching benefit in the below marke~ rate component.
There also is a public benefit package, which has been proposed and discussed in your packet.
Currently there are three elements of that public benefit package that Staff believes constitute
public benefit. The first of those is a meeting area and facility that would be open to all seniors
in the City and a coordination with our Senior Center, Avenidas, which would allow seniors
from the Center to participate along with the Sunrise residents in use of those rooms and events
that occur in those rooms. There is also a proposal by the applicant to participate in our Trees for
E1 Camino Project, which would include median improvements, landscape and tree
improvements along El Camino and in front of this facility. Then also there is a proposal to
improve the pedestrian interaction in front of the facility, wider sidewalks, a double row of trees
as called for in the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and a bus shelter improvements and a
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
place for people to sit out of the sun, a sun shelter. So there would be a better pedestrian
interaction between the site and the street.
We have outlined some concerns and potential improvements to the design and the site location
of the building to move perhaps some of the mass forward on the building to move it away from
the adjacent apartments and condominiums and towards E1 Camino which again addresses the
street better and to make some improvements to that pedestrian interface along the street. There
would be an impact fee collected for the project. That would equal about $292,000 to go to
community services, libraries and other park impact fees.
We did receive several letters of concern from neighbors and I believe they are here to discuss
those concerns with you. One of those letters came in today which specifically referenced the
CEQA portion of the noticing, the California Environmental Quality Act portion of the noticing
in the newspaper that appeared for this project. We have discussed that with the City Attorney.
The language does not constitute a legal deficiency in the notice. It was a general reference to
the CEQA analysis that will be done for this project. Typically for Planned Community zone
changes we don’t do the environmental until after this initial hearing with the Commission where
you raise your issues and concerns, we hear from the public and then we do the environmental
analysis before the project moves on to the Architectural Review Board. There was a
generalized statement about CEQA review in the notice that showed up in the newspaper. What
we have committed to doing is in the future removing that general clause from the newspaper
add and making specific references to the CEQA analysis that will done for every project when it
shows up in the paper. So at this point the way it was worded was not a legal deficiency in the
noticing.
We are requesting comment from the Commission tonight, direction, any concerns that you have,
an opportunity to have a dialogue with the applicant and any concerns from neighbors and
residents. I would like to introduce Russ Reich who is the Project Manager and who has been
working on this project. Also we have Amy French, Manager of Current Planning, and we have
Nellie Ancel from the City Attorney’s Office with us tonight. We are all available for questions.
Thank you.
Ms. Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney: If I may, I wanted to address the CEQA issue in a
little more detail just to let you know that the CEQA guidelines state that environmental
document preparation and review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with our existing
planning review and project approval process and it is supposed to run concurrently not
consecutively. We are in a very preliminary point in the planning process, even our PC zoning
code says the submittal so far are fairly preliminary. So I think we are okay on CEQA.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Nellie. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Lisa, just a clarification. I don’t believe the parking is included in the
overall square footage but you had mentioned that it in a sense was included and I don’t believe
it is.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: The building itself will be 80,500 square feet of that about 60,000 or slightly over
will be living area but the parking is included in the 80,500 square foot calculation.
Commissioner Bellomo: Below level?
Ms. Grote: Yes. Just to give you a sense of how big overall the project is, the building.
Commissioner Bellomo: So it is just the footprint into the subterranean parking that is included.
Ms. Grote: In the 80,000, right. Now in FAR in non-Downtown areas that parking is not
included in the floor area ratio. That is why there is a difference between the 60,000 and the
80,000. So when you are calculating the FAR you don’t include the parking spaces or the drive
isles.
Commissioner Bellomo: Right.
Ms. Grote: You include the mechanical rooms. You include any facilities but not the driving
isles.
Commissioner Bellomo: So the FAR will be based on the 60,000.
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Commissioner Bellomo: You are just trying to give us ....
Ms. Grote: I was just trying to give you the difference for comparison purposes the difference in
the actual square footage versus that which is counted into FAR.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you for that clarification.
Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions we would enjoy having the applicant come
forward and that would be Daniel Zemanek. Welcome Mr. Zemanek. we have a 15-minute
period allocated to you and to anybody else that you have with you. Perhaps Jerry McDevitt is
also going to be participating in this discussion. You would have 15 minutes between the two of
you.
Daniel F. Zemanek, Applicant, Sunrise Senior Living, 249 View Street, Mountain View: Mr.
Chairman, thank you. Commissioners thank you very much for giving us the oppommity of
being here tonight. I live in Mountain View here on the peninsula. I would just like to introduce
the people that we brought here because you may have questions for everybody. Bill Lundstrom
is my associate from Sunrise. Bill is from the east bay in Danville. Dote Parker is with
operations from Sunrise. Dore has been with Sunrise just about as long as anyone has been.
Jerry McDevitt from Mithun Architects in Seattle. Mithun specializes in housing for the elderly.
Christian Dehay from David Gates and Associates, our landscape architects, also from Danville
in the east bay. Steven Nakashima who is the project civil engineer from Los Altos. John
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Rinbaugh who is our inclusionary housing consultant also from Danville. And Chris Grey from
Fehr & Peers our traffic consultant out of Lafayette. I don’t think I have missed anybody.
I think it is very important just to give you a very quick overview of Sunrise and who Sunrise is.
Sunrise has a very unique story. In 1981 a young couple, Paul and Terry Clausen, were 23 years
of age at the time, were watching their grandparents aging. Paul’s grandparents by the way were
natives of Holland at the time and he had been traveling back and forth from the time he was a
teenage visiting them. When he got in his early 20s both Paul and Terry realized that what the
Dutch did for the elderly was something rather unique. When they lost their independence they
were not put in a white sterile box but instead they put into a very residential environment
allowed to age with dignity and grace. At 23 years of age Paul and Terry Clausen had noticed
that in this country at that time when somebody lost their independence and they didn’t have a
son or a daughter capable of taking care of them they were put into a skilled nursing facility even
though they were not ill, they were merely frail.
So they borrowed $25,000 from a group of friends. They bought a broken down nursing facility
in Oakton, Virginia. They completely gutted it, they changed it, and they made it very
residential. They ended all of the institutional feel of it. Paul and Terry Clausen gave up their
lifestyle. They moved in. It became their home and they administered to the first 15 Sunrise
residents. That was in 1981. Fast forward the clock, the Clausens today are in their early 40s,
they are involved in every single Sunrise that is built. Sunrise now takes care of 400 homes in
the United States, Canada, Great Britain and soon to be Germany and Japan. By the way that
first facility in Oakton, Virginia is still very much alive and well and working. Paul and Terry
Clausen if they have enough years left of their life they want to put Sunrise in every major
metropolitan area of the world. They certainly have the enthusiasm to so that. Sunrise wants to
take care of seniors and they want to take care of seniors in a non-institutional manner.
I just want to put the rendering up of what we are attempting to do here in Palo Alto and kind of
give you some idea of what has taken place to date. ~ We have tried since last November to get a
prescreening in front of the City Council. We even had a prescreening that we thought was
etched in stone with you on July 30 that was cancelled about a day or two before that meeting.
So we feel privileged that we are here tonight. We have decided that we have given up on
prescreening and we are just going to go ahead with the program.
Staff has been absolutely super in this regard. They have really worked with us. In light of the
fact that we have not had benefit ofprescreen we have counseled with them. We have worked
on all aspects of our plans with them. We have had many meetings with Staff, I mean many
meetings, and with the various disciplines of the City. We even had a DRC session and we
answered hopefully all of the concerns that the DRC brought up at that meeting.
Tonight is very important to us as you can all imagine. We have spent much time and money
getting to this point and we feel confident that we have a project that both you and the City of
Palo Alto can be proud of. We have met on a couple of occasions informally with the residents
of Silverwood. It is a condominium project that borders our site. We have met formally with
them on two occasions, informally a couple of times. The first meeting was to present an
overview of our plan and for the second meeting we brought along one of our operations people
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
to be able to answer questions regarding the actual operation of our Sunrise home. In addition I
have met with Mr. Herbert Foster, a resident in the building at 410 Sheridan across the street
from Silverwood and from our site as well. The 410 building as you know is a four-story
structure with 55 condominiums. You have received correspondence from Silverwood which we
will address this evening. Mr. Foster by the way, from 410 Sheridan, said I could quote him
made the comment that anything that happens on that site would be an improvement. His
concern was traffic generation. He also stated that he hopes our building will be a noise buffer
from the traffic on E1 Camino. He noted that when Silverwood was built it became a sound
buffer for noise for him and the other residents at 410 from Page Mill Road.
Let me briefly outline what we are trying to accomplish. This is the site in red. I think it is
important to note that we are looking for a PC zone change. The property to the north of us,
Silverwood, is PC now. The building on Ash is PC, a little PC zoning here. Then the only non
PC in this square block of Ash, Page Mill, E1 Camino Real and Sheridan is the site that the VTA
has which is zoned PF. We by the way have attempted to try to acquire that site. The owners of
our site have attempted to acquire that site there is no way anyone is going to acquire that site
from the VTA at this point. It is not even on their radar screen. Let me show you what the site
looks like today. This is the site and it is basically half asphalt and half dirt. There was formally
a landscape operation here. I want to draw your attention to this building in the back which is
the 410 Sheridan building. It is a four story building really in addition to four stories they even
have a couple of towers here which we assume are probably elevator towers. This is the
Silverwood building. Again the site rtmning along E1 Camino Real and again what we would be
is looking basically north. As many years as I have lived here I am still confused. I always like
to think of E1 Camino Real nmning north and south but it never does it seems. So we are
looking north and we are standing with our back to the south. Again this is the four-story
building and this is Silverwood. This by the way is a bus stop for the VTA. Another shot
looking up toward Page Mill Road, our site on the left. Then this kind of gives you a current
streetscape of what it looks like today. Our site would begin as you can see this fencing here,
this is the bus stop for the VTA and Sheridan would be right down at the end of the block. So
that gives you some idea of what the site currently looks like.
We are proposing to build a three and four story building and in some cases even two as it necks
down in the back of 81 units. Keep in mind that we are talking about assisted living units. That
is something very important to keep in mind. You cannot think of a unit in an assisted living
facility as you would an apartment complex. Basically these are enhanced bedrooms. They do
not have cook tops. It is a place where people go to retire in the evening, to rest during the
daytime and hopefully during the day they are working with our staff and they are involved in
various activities within the home. They will be served three meals a day as a result of not
having cook tops in the rooms of course.
Let me go to some typical interior photos of what a Sunrise facility looks like. This happens to
be a living room library in a typical Sunrise home. It is very residential. There is no feel of
institution here. This is s signature item in all Sunrises. We have a two story grand entryway,
which would typically be staffed with a concierge desk. No one is in uniform you are not going
to have a counter where somebody is standing behind again looking very institutionalized. One
time Paul Clausen asked seniors, and keep in mind our people are somewhere between 83 and 84
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
years of age, what constitutes home. They said staircases and fireplaces. Throughout Sunrises
we have staircases and fireplaces. This is a typical dining room, it is formal, cloth napkins, cloth
tablecloths and it is in a very nice setting. That would be a very typical look to a Sunrise dining
room. One of our terraces that would be off of one of the floors of the building, a place where
residents can come together, sit, talk and enjoy. Then we also have an audio-visual room that we
show movies. We have posters that show the genre pictures from their age group going back to
the 1940s and 1930s with a popcorn machine. This is what we call a three-season porch but it is
more of a four-season porch. It is a porch that is up toward the entryway because people in this
age group very much enjoy seeing the actions of daily living. They do not want to be out in the
middle of nowhere, the more action the better. This is what we call a bistro. It is kind ofa segue
room going into our dining room, a place where they can queue for dinner, sit down, play cards,
listen to ajuke box again with music of the era. You can see the 78 records here on the wall.
Sunrise, what does it try to do? It encourages independence for seniors. We try to preserve their
dignity, personalize their services and we enable them to have freedom of choice. We do not
cookie cutter activities and we do cookie cutter choices in a Sunrise. We foster their
individuality. We protect their privacy. We nurture their spirit and we try to involve family and
friends whenever possible.
I arn just going to give you a very quick overview of what is happening with assisted living
because you are seeing this in your own communities. The 80-year old population and greater is
the fastest growing population segment there is. Back in 1980 there was practically no assisted
living beds from the top 50 providers. By 1990 there were about 25,000 beds and then by the
year 2000 roughly 150,000 beds. Now as we look to the future the estimate is that by the year
2010 the need will be close to 450,000 beds and by the year 2020 it will be close to 600,000. So
it is really an exploding age bracket.
We talked about public benefits and what we think are the public benefits that we are bringing to
this site in requesting this PC change. We are bringing truly a state-of-the-art assisted living
home. There is nothing like it now in Palo Alto. It is a housing opportunity for your residents
here in Palo Alto who are cognitively impaired. Out of the 81 units 22 of them will be what we
call a reminiscence neighborhood, which will be devoted to the cognitively impaired. We will
provide meeting space for senior groups in the area. You talk to people especially people at
Avenidas meeting space is really at a premium. Focal point for Palo Alto seniors, we hope to be
able to have it as a clearing house that senior can call and get information and again working
with people like the Avenidas Senior Center. Providing onsite below market rate opportunity.
Rather than just giving you an in lieu fee and possibly not being able to find an oppommity to do
that we are going to put that BMR stock onsite. We will maximize housing stock for seniors in
the area. By the way, something interesting about 70% of our seniors will be coming out of
current homes and shelter here in Palo Alto, which will free up additional housing stock for other
people. Then of course we are going to reduce future car trips under the current zoning. I have a
slide that goes into a little bit of detail on that as well. Again, cooperating with the Avenidas
Senior Center. We are going to interface with Trees for E1 Camino project. We met with those
folks already and it is kind of exciting. We would like to see an enhancement of E1 Camino up
near our project. Then especially we want to, and our architect will show you this, we want to
enhance the streetscape out in front of our property along E1 Camino by creating a pedestrian
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
friendly area incorporating greenery, benches and a sun shelter to make a very inviting place and
people might even be able to inter-commune with our residents.
The traffic generation, just to give you some idea of what might happen under the current zoning.
If a restaurant which under the zoning would be allowed to go in the front 12,700 square feet,
that restaurant could generate anywhere from 500 to 1,000 car trips per day. If on the remaining
parcel you put 23 condos at seven car trips a day you would have about 161 car trips. The total
could be anywhere from 661 to 1,161 car trips per day. Our studies show that we will generate
approximately 280 car trips per day. So a zone change for us and allowing Sunrise to be built
would be a savings, a zoning savings for car trips of anywhere from 381 to 881 car trips per day.
I am going to stop talking here and I would like to turn this over to our architect to kind of go
over some of the most important points, the building itself. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jerry McDevitt, Mithun Architects, Pier 56, 1201 Alaskan Wag, Seattle: is that the alarm?
Chair Griffin: Yes, you fellows actually are out of time. How long did you require to go
through your architectural portion?
Mr. McDevitt: I can be very short. I can be five minutes.
Chair Griffin: Okay, and we will ask you some questions as well.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay. In addition to being very briefI wanted to provide a couple of important
times. I understand that we had a potentially serious error in an elevation drawing indicating a
building height that was wrong. I have an exhibit here if I can submit it, which shows the actual
building height to the top of roof at 44 feet, eight inches.
Chair Griffin: You might want to give that to Zariah.
Mr. McDevitt: Okay. I would like to pass around the color/materials board. We have a massing
model that helps illustrate concept. It is small enough where I think when I am talking about it I
might like to put it up maybe on your counter if that is okay.
Chair Griffin: Please.
Mr. McDevitt: Good. Dan could you put the color board up there as well? Thanks. Feel free to
turn that around or hand that around it is pretty durable and it’s not that heavy.
Our primary goal in designing this project is two parts. Providing an assisted living facility,
which provides a quality environment for seniors, was very eloquently described by Dan and I
will leave that. I think you did a thorough job on that. The other is just to present the
architectural solution that we think addresses Sunrise’s program but it also addresses some of the
concerns of the community. Our goal was to create a project that fit in well and created a
pleasant addition to the urban design fabric of this part of Palo Alto.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
I have the landscape illustrative plan up and I just want to walk you through the project quickly.
I think the best way to do this is to present the slides, talk about them and then answer questions.
So key aspects to this project are how one arrives at the building. You can see from the model
that we have created a small auto court near the comer of Sheridan and E1 Camino Real. The
intent there was to provide some wing enclosure of thebuilding so that courtyard felt relatively
enclosed or hinted at enclosed and supplement that with the landscaping. We have an identity
sign right here, which is tastefully integrated into the landscape. Rather than what you see here,
a small fountain, we have elected to really have a specimen tree that is of proper scale. Here is
detail of that auto court.
Something that has been very important in the development of the project is to provide
comfortable edges and allow this building to appear as a good neighbor as well as provide usable
and nice active areas for the seniors to go outside. What we see here is facing the VTA lot, Page
Mill beyond, the building is stepped back which you can see from 20 feet to 37 feet. Here are
the Silverwood condominiums approximately right here and it bends down.
Also it was very important to develop and amenity for El Camino so at the opposite end of the
building which you can see on E1 Camino we have provided a paved courtyard space which is
really a rest area, a place to wait for the bus as well as right here, in front of the building shaded
by a trellis, there are street trees and built-in benches and potted plants in this area.
As you can see from the model access to the project from the auto court above, drive down the
driveway to the garage. You can see that we fairly closely followed the footprint of the building
for an efficient parking garage. The blue areas are support spaces for the building.
Main floor spaces, this area is indicating the main entry to the building. There is a familiar two-
story space right here, concierge, elevator, etc. In summary this blue area includes dining,
kitchen, meeting rooms, living areas, it is really the main common areas of the first floor. The
yellow are the resident rooms. These resident rooms at ground level have little patios, which are
articulated on the model with paved areas and small trellises out front. Also note that we have
purposely stepped the building back here and stepped the building back here in deference to the
existing Silverwood condominiums.
As we go up the building the open stairs flanked by additional support common areas, which the
residents use in a central part of the building. The special care, the reminiscence area on the
third floor, you can see how there is a small dining/living area and food kitchen and that large
outdoor terrace with resident rooms on both sides. The top floor, which is indicating something
very important, it also occurred on the third floor, we stepped the building from a four-story
structure to a two-story structure below the third floor. So if you look at the model you can see
right here it is four down to two. Along E1 Camino Real the building is stepped from four stories
to three stories.
I want to speak briefly about the materials, the fact that the building is intended to be
owned/operated by Sunrise. It is not a quick spec turnaround type of building. It is a type two
fire rated construction. It is a concrete frame, fully sprinkled, it is state-of-the-art in terms of life
safety. The materials that you see on the board that you can pass up there are really the siding.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The main body of the building is this color, which is a horizontal siding [sementicious] board
like hardy board. The areas on the bays, levels two and three, the lighter color is a stucco
traditional three coat stucco not [effus]. The base of the building below each of the bays is a
stone veneer as well as the stone you see on all of the small garden walls and the signage and site
features of the building as well as the lower stories of the tower.
Chair Griffin: Mr. McDevitt I am wondering if you could wrap up your portion of the program.
We are dying to ask you some questions.
Mr. McDevitt: I know you are. We are using wood windows throughout, tree divided lights at
the main floor, two types of roofing high quality 35-year laminate roofing on the upper and you
see the porch elements on the building? We used a pewter colored, not a bright colored, standing
seam metal roof. That also occurs on the tower elements themselves. With that I would love to
answer your questions.
Chair Griffin: Any Commissioners who would like to start? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: What are the average square footages of the actual living spaces?
Mr. McDevitt: The residential rooms range as a minimum 310 square feet for the smallest
studios to 680 square feet for the larger two-room suites. As Dan mentioned earlier the common
areas that you saw in blue on the plans represent about 40% of the floor plate and the rooms and
the staff really have the residents in the common areas for the good part of the day.
Commissioner Burt: How many employees are anticipated?
Mr. McDevitt: I will defer to Dan on that.
Mr. Zemanek: At peak times, which would be probably between the hours often o’clock and
three o’clock, there would be a maximum of about 21 employees. I might add that 50%, at least
50% will take public transportation.
Commissioner Burt: What causes you to believe that 50% would take public transportation?
Mr. Zemanek: Anecdotally from all of the complexes that we have and certainly Dore Parker
can attest to that, who is our operations person from actually what happens at our homes.
Commissioner Burt: I think we would welcome seeing statistics on that. Have you had a TDM
programs with any of your other developments? Transportation Demand Management programs
that would cause enhanced use of alternative transportation?
Ms. Dore Parker, Sunrise Development, Inc.: In several places where it was needed we did give
to long term employees some help with their bus fare and that sort of thing. Anecdotally and we
will be happy to go in and get you hard statistics but I would say we have 50% of the people take
public transportation when it is available and when we help supplement it.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to explore a little bit regarding massing and your thought
process on how arrived at your current fairly detailed design of your complex. Let me start with
the back of house. The service, there is a notation on one of the plans that denotes a service area
near the ramp location on Sheridan. Is that intended for a food? Explain to me the loading kind
of movement around the building so I can get a handle on what that area is used for.
Mr. McDevitt: Doors to our kitchen are here in this area. This is where the kitchen is. Trash in
thig area. This is a fire access lane that has also been negotiated for trash pickup right here when
the bins get pushed out early in the morning. Food service originally was designed to come in
here on pallets or carts and be pushed this way because of the busy street along E1 Camino Real.
We have examined this a lot and in a lot of meetings with the residents that has been a concern
because of perhaps idling trucks. Now there are very few 18-wheel semis most of them are box
vans but we are looking seriously at proposing short-term parking right here.
Commissioner Bellomo: On Sheridan? Okay. So you haven’t resolved your circulation pattern
quite yet.
Mr. McDevitt: Well with those trucks this would be a very logical access right to the kitchen.
Commissioner Bellomo: I understand. Going back down to the south where you have your
garbage enclosure the intention is to back out onto E1 Camino?
Mr. McDevitt: No, no, the trucks would park right here. They are there for a very short two
minutes. They pull out the bins.
Commissioner Bellomo: So it is only trash that you are pulling out.
Mr. McDevitt: Only trash.
Commissioner Bellomo: And the rest of it is developed for a proposed wrap and that is why the
indentation.
Mr. McDevitt: Right.
Commissioner Bellomo: So you pull out. Okay. Thanks. Did you have any other schemes that
you brought along to show us other solutions?
Mr. McDevitt: In terms of service access?
Commissioner Bellomo: Other solutions that you might have had with this. My questions really
allude to did you look at schemes that created more massing along E1 Camino?
Mr. McDevitt: Actually we did. In a lot of our internal design meetings we had a more massive
corner with a carved out portion in the middle of the building.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bellomo: So more of an open courtyard~ which would mitigate some of that west
sun that courtyard, is kind of, I mean, you are really encapmring a lot of that west sun in this
courtyard.
Mr. McDevitt: But there is landscaping around it and there is tree in the middle of it.
Commissioner Bellomo: I guess what I don’t want to have to do is argue about your design.
Really what I am trying to get to is how it evolved, where it is going and really discussing E1
Camino Real massing. I wanted to see or talk to you to get where you went with that and kind of
this E1 Camino vitality. Did you look at the guidelines, the ZOU and how you came up with this
solution?
Mr. McDevitt: We did look at the guidelines very carefully. What we are very fond of and
trying to create was more of a European inspired auto court with enriched paving that was
hinting at enveloping the space with the architecture. Then the landscape of course would
complete that. It would be a gesture that was public space open to the street rather than being
something exclusive or appearing private right here.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. So I guess my trouble might be and again it is again a question,
is really looking at those, how you explored it and how you arrived here and it is E1 Camino, it is
not Europe and really wanting to know did you look at mixed uses, did you look at kind of an E1
Camino use that might have mixed it up with neighborhood serving? I am trying really quickly
because I don’t want to take a long time on questions on the evolution of this.
Mr. McDevitt: Those are good questions. When you look at the elevations close up there are
much taller windows with transom windows above. These are the wood windows tree divided
lights. They really extend from this area all the way around to here. There is a higher level of
furnishing, higher ceilings, more elegant lighting, there is a lot of interplay between what is
happening out in the street and the activity inside. That animates the building because of the
dining and the more public spaces of the building but there are really no literal shops or outside
businesses in the structure because it is a fairly compact building.
Commissioner Bellomo: I really understand where you have come. Certainly I understand the
design. What I am looking for is to other solutions but I understand that you have arrived here.
Just to move on from this let me ask you about tb.e street improvements. Your model does not
include kind of the improvements to E1 Camino. Is it the intention as you go about a public
benefit to improve the median only in front of your site? This question might be for Staff too, I
am wondering where those bounds are and how it is determined on what that public benefit
might be.
Ms. Grote: We haven’t determined exact boundaries. In the past when offsite improvements are
part of a public benefit package they have had to have been adjacent to or close to the project
itself so there is a direct relationship of the public benefits being provided and the project. So it
will most likely be adjacent to the frontage of the project.
Page 12
1 Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. One more question. The public spaces as you define it I see
2 kind of a public park I think I saw or public area and I saw chess tables. Is it really the intention
3 for a pedestrian to walk E1 Camino and feel that he can transition up into this zone and play
4 chess?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. McDevitt: I hope so. I think if it is done right and the enriched paving which you asked the
question about how much does that come out. Does it stop at the property line or is it out in the
public area.
Commissioner Bellomo: So if you are waiting for a bus you can play?
Mr. McDevitt: You can come in here and see the bus. There are benches along the sidewalk and
then the tables, th~ reality is they would have to be small tables that are fixed or they would
probably be gone af~er a couple of nights, but if they were chess or any other medium I.think
they would attract people. There would be some low level night lighting there to make it feel
safe. There would be planting, trees overhead and a trellis and generally it is not an exclusive
private area. It is opened up to the sidewalk.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Mr. McDevitt, in the course of the Staff presentation there was some discussion,
Lisa I believe you said that there was consideration on your part in apparently pulling the
building a little bit closer to E1 Camino in order to comply somewhat more with the spirit of the
E1 Camino Design Guidelines. Joe asked you somewhat the same question. I wonder if you
would like to elaborate a little bit on what your eventual plan might be to accommodate the
building to the E1 Camino Design Guidelines.
Mrl McDevitt: To clarify could we reduce the 20-foot dimension to something less? Yes, we
could. I think we might want to rethink this. It might become linear, less rectangular. I don’t
want to speak for my client but if that were to be a successful courtyard and it was too linear it
might want to borrow literally from what is going on on the sidewalk in terms of the same paving
for example.
Chair Griffin: I am also wondering about the site elevations close to the condominium project.
The neighbors had indicated that a three-story interface with their building might be
advantageous to them as opposed to a four story. Maybe you could discuss that a little bit if you
had some thoughts.
Mr. McDevitt: We are aware that initially it was four stories and it was uncomfortable for them.
So what we did was modeled the building so that the fourth story stopped and it became two
stories. So it steps from four to two right here. You can see, I am pointing at the board and I
hope I don’t hit anybody with this pointer, along Sheridan two story steps up to four stories and
then of course on E1 Camino it is three stories that steps up to four stories. So there really isn’t a
four-story wall except right here. That is a distance of 40 some feet.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Griffin: And there might be a possibility of going from two to three and then to four and
more of a stair-step progression. That would be a possibility.
Mr. McDevitt: That might be.
Chair Griffin: I have a question about trucks. This is a lot of follow up on what Joe has already
discussed but off loading tracks can be a problem particularly in a highly traffic or fully parked
neighborhood like this one. We are all familiar with LIPS trucks just stopping dead in the middle
of the street because there is no place for them to off load. I am wondering is it possible that
your ramp going into the basement could be constructed in such a way that you could actually
off load some of the box vans in the underground garage as opposed stationing them in the street
and off loading that way? I know there are problems with that but I would be interested in your
comments.
Mr. McDevitt: It is possible but right now we have the garage designed to be approximately
eight feet below the finished floor. This is a ramp that is designed to accommodate that. If we
were to need to put trucks in there that garage would have to be designed to be 14 feet and that is
a considerable impact, excavation, the ramp would have to be probably to here to be able to get
down there. It would wipe out all that green space or it would cut into the buildings. Dan, do
you want to talk about this?
Mr. Zemanek: If I could just mention something to you and this is very current. The typical
deliveries that we have I think it is important to notewhat we are talking about from the
standpoint of how many trucks. We would have two major deliveries a week and those could
possibly be an 18-wheeler but typically it might be a smaller truck than an 18-wheeler. We do
have leverage over deciding what they are going to be sending if that is a problem. Then the
other delivery we have is produce and that comes twice a week in a box van. I am not talking
about trash collection that is going to be done off of E1 Camino Real and mail that will take
place. But those are the deliveries. So you are talking about basically four trucks a week that
will come in to this facility and again we also have the ability of determining times as well as
size of vehicles.
Chair Griffin: So if you don’t have a way to accommodate them in the basement then I take it
that they would be stopping in the street then and off loading in that manner. Is that correct?
Mr. Zemanek: We talked about maybe in that area of having the possibility of maybe doing a
possible yellow curb during the daytime and just allow these trucks to pull over there, unload,
they are not going to spend a lot of time. They are in and out. UPS could use the auto court as
well as coming in.
Chair Griffin: I am also interested in the noise aspect. HVAC systems can be noisy. Gensets
and particularly trash compactors in my experience are pretty high noise generators. I see that
the trash compactor is going to be on the property line back near the neighbor’s condominiums.
Any other place to put that kind of a facility where it perhaps would be more accommodating?
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Zemanek: Commissioner that is not going to be a crmpactor back there. It will be plastic
totes. We want to make it as silent a pick up as possible. The totes will have to be brought to the
curb at E1 Camino Real inside. So it is not going to be a compactor. Also we ran some
acoustical studies. We found out that the ambient acoustical noise level here the base rate is 66
decibels. There is only one piece of equipment that we have that will be even close to that and
exceed it ever so slightly and that is the generator. So we are putting the generator inside the
building and the generator as you know will test itself about once a month and it runs for a few
minutes and we can judge that during the daytime obviously. We can do something to bring that
noise level down to make sure we are not exceeding the 72 decibels there either. All the other
equipment that we have which will be on the roof there won’t be any through-wall air
conditioning systems here that will be banging against the building next door.
Chair Griffin: Great, that is encouraging. Phyllis, do you have any comments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think we are at questions at this point. I am back to what you define as
assisted living versus independent living versus nursing home. Most of the assisted living
facilities that I have seen or experienced have had people in individual units even the Alzheimer
units I’ve seen for assisted living. So I was rather surprised when I saw something you call
Denver Units and someone called two bedroom units when they are really two person units.
Those don’t seem to be husband and wife arrangements they seem to be you have to go through
someone’s bedroom space to get to the next bedroom space. It seemed a little strange to me. It
seemed more like not nursing home care in that the people are totally being physically cared for
at a medical facility but rather on that nature that when people can no longer take care of
themselves at all they were being watched. Do have anything to say about that? I am concerned.
We are counting these housing units and they don’t seem to be housing units.
Mr. Zemanek: They are, Commissioner. I am going to turn this over to Dore Parker to answer
but let me just first of all extend an invitation that I would love to take you all to a Sunrise and
show you how it works. I think that is something that might be very important. Let me have
Dore answer this.
Ms. Parker: I started out ten or 15 years ago agreeing 100% who would ever want to share a
room? Interestingly enough most of the shares occur in our reminiscent neighborhoods and it
works beautifully. It is almost like they feel more secure in a room with somebody else with
them. A lot of times there is two different compositions of rooms some it is one large studio
where two people share and in some there is like you say the two room. Each person will have
their separate room but they share the little kitchenette area and the bathroom. It is a way to
provide less expensive care. As I say in the reminiscent neighborhood the story I tell is that one
family was paying for a two-room suite for a lady in the Alzheimer’s unit and she never slept
there. She went down the hall and slept on the couch in her best friend’s studio. We told the
family they were wasting their money and they kept it for a while and finally let her move in
with her friend. So anyone who would like to come see, Fremont is probably the closest to you,
we would love arrange a time to show you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to go back down to that garage. It would seem to me that a lot more
can be done to that. For one you need a van, I presume you are going to have a van to drive
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
people around where is that going to be stored? Secondly, my experience has been being a
family member you are going to have visitors here. There is a family member bringing a person
into assisted living being able to go down into the basement and have them come up by elevator
into the facility was a lot more convenient than having them walk the long distance from the
front area you have with the two handicapped spaces. That is really a long ways from most
living spaces in this house. What arrangements have you made and how do you count how many
visitors are coming? How do you estimate that? That seems to be in other places I have seen the
shortest of the housing is actually for visitors. It wouldn’t surprise me if you have no people
driving in this facility who live there. You may but it is perfectly possible to make me believe
that but it is not possible to make me believe that you aren’t going to have a lot of visitors
particularly in this community. So could you help me understand why you chose the number of
spaces for visitors and what arrangements you are making for drop off spaces other than that
front courtyard and where you are going to store the van?
Mr. McDevitt: I’ll start with the van. I am going to go back to the site plan. We have revised
this to be the van parking here and then one handicapped space and the balance of the
handicapped in the garage. The van is a small step van. It is really a Ford F250 size van that
holds about 16 passengers.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Why wouldn’t you park that down below so it wouldn’t be sitting out in the
front? You are going to need more than two spaces up front. We have had lots of experience
around town that two spaces up front for people dropping off is simply not adequate. If you have
to park the van it is not going to work. That is the experience around some of the senior housing
that I have seen.
Mr. McDevitt: Is the van going to be parked anywhere else? Typically Sunrise prefers to park
the van in the front. It is a very tastefully painted finished van.
Vice-Chair Cassel: You only have two spaces up there now. So that means you only have one
drop off space.
Mr. McDevitt: That is correct. They get dropped off right here if it is a guest or a daughter of a
resident and then the car gets parked and they come up the elevator into the building.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is awkward.
Mr. McDevitt: That is a very typical sequence for Sunrise and it works very well. I think they
would like to show you a couple of those buildings where it does happen.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, that has not been my experience.
Mr. McDevitt: Would you like to add to this? I am the architect. I am not the policy driver
here.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That is a question that can be answered later obviously.
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Coreanissioner Burt: What is the size of the community meeting room that would be available to
other senior groups?
Mr. Zemanek: Commissioner, when we have had our discussions with the Avenidas Senior
Center, Lisa Hendrickson, we talked about taking like for example our dining room. Our dining
room is used three times a day when the dining room isn’t functioning as a dining room we can
convert it into a meeting room. So various rooms within the Sunrise home can have dual
purpose. That’s what we are talking about. We are not just confining them to one small room.
Chair Griffin: Unless Commissioners have any more questions I would like to go to the public
now. We have a number of cards. We will give each member of the public five minutes to
discuss a point of view. The first speaker is Bill Hahn followed by Bob Cutler and Joe Villareal.
If you folks could all sort of station yourselves in such a way that you could come forward
quickly so that we can move through these.
Mr. Bill Hahn, 435 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. I am an owner and resident at 435
Sheridan, which is the neighbor that is going to be right behind it. First of all thanks for the time
I really appreciate it. I wanted to basically say that I have no objection to a generic neighbor of
either assisted living or Sunrise. In fact I think they do very attractive buildings and looked at
their website, etc.
I do have some objections to this specific proposal. Frankly I think you guys are on the right
track because you are asking most of the questions that I am about to raise myself. The primary
one is that it just feels like every dimension if you think of the code as a cube that nearly every
’dimension is being asked for an exception, the density, the parking, the height, the setbacks are
about a push, the below market rate requirements, etc. There are all minor exceptions in almost
every case so it just feels like you are stretching, the specific proposal, is stretching the limits.
The two major ones that I am concerned about the number one is height. The reason I asked for
this is I think that model in front of Commissioner Bellomo is a little bit deceiving because it
shows us with a flat roof there on Silverwood. In fact our roofline looks very much like this
picture. So the maximum height which looks like a flat roof there is actually a peak of a roof just
like their peak. So just in all honesty we look just like that one story less. There is really no
difference. So it is however you want to do your math, 25% to 33% higher than we are. We are
very concerned about the sunlight the various blockages there particularly for the folks on the
lower floor. I think Mr. Griffin to the extent you were talking about stepping down things sooner
would help. Obviously ideally we would love to just see three stories instead of four but moving
it to E1 Camino, getting step down sooner would be helpful. Ideally we would like to just see
you hold the line with the 40-foot current coding height.
The second major time that I am concerned about is parking not what was called car drops or car
drives. I can believe that there will be lower traffic. We are very, very concerned about parking
and Bob Cutler will share with you a photo taken very, very recently of Sheridan on just a typical
afternoon here basically full. It is full now. This is not Sunrise’s fault but Sheridan is pretty
much packed all the time. All the things that you are talking about with regard to deliveries are
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
accentuated by that because if these tracks are pulling up with full streets they are literally taking
one of the two lanes left to drive in. We have some of that in front of our place when people are
moving and so on. I do accept some of the argument that obviously fewer residents will have
cars perhaps some of the workers will use public transportation but I think when you start talking
about 81 units, 21 works and ’n’ number of visitors 38 spaces get used up real fast. So it just
feels like there is a shortage of parking. I think if you could figure out how to have them
accommodate the truck or the box vans downstairs that would be helpful too.
One last quick comment, I am assuming that all the standard sort of code things with regard to
noise, with regard to odors there might be from either a food facility, from a laundry facility, etc.
will get covered appropriately. Thank you for you time I really appreciate it.
Chair Griffin~. Thank you. Now the next speaker is Bob Cutler followed by Joe Villa real.
Mr. Bob Cutler, 435 Sheridan Avenue, #303, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at Silverwood
condominiums adjacent to the proposed building site. My letter to the Planning Commission as
the President of our condominium’s homeowner association was distributed last Friday. In it I
supported the Sunrise project but stated some concerns. Tonight I am speaking for my wife and
myself as homeowners and wish to state our concerns.
Currently Sheridan Avenue is filled with parked cars during the day Monday through Friday.
This problem is caused by non-residents with parking needs not addressed at their place of
business. There is a photo of it I guess Zariah passed out to you that I took just this last Monday
at 1:30. There were 13 cars parked on Sheridan along the entire length of the proposed
development. Sunrise loading zones and multiple driveways will remove most of these 13
spaces and the development will potentially create the need for more on-street parking. It should
be noted that any building constructed on the site would add to the parking problem nevertheless
this is an issue that should be addressed.
My second concern with the proposed project is the potential for noise, which has already been
discussed a little bit. I am asking the Planning Commission to see that everything possible be
done to assure that we are not disturbed by noise from air conditioning and heating units,
generators, exhaust fans, trash pick up, etc.
Finally, we hope the setbacks on the sides adjacent to Silverwood remain at the proposed footage
or are increased since the mass of the Sunrise building will have somewhat less of an impact if it
is further from our site.
My wife and I generally support the proposed project. We feel that an assisted living facility
especially of the quality that we understand Sunrise has constructed and operated at other sites
will be an asset to our community. I would like to compliment and thank Dan Zemanek and the
management of Sunrise. They have held two excellent informational meetings at Silverwood for
our homeowners in order to describe their project and address our questions. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Cutler. Joe Villareal. Following Joe will be Angelica Volterra
and Dr. James Yee. Welcome, Joe.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
Mr. Joe A. Villareal, 360 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have a little slide. This
is the comer we are talking about. Here is Embarcadero, here is Page Mill and of coursethis is a
very busy intersection. How do I go to the next slide? This is a particular area that is impacted.
This is the May-field area. This is where the tennis courts are going to go of course. All of these
are little units. This is Silverwood, this is Page Mill Court, this 435 Sheridan, this Jerusalem
Baptist Church, Sheridan Apartments where I live. This is Mayfield. There is 200 Sheridan. So
this is one of the areas that is densely packed. It is near transit areas. I have lived in this
neighborhood now since 1978. You can see these red areas, that is California Avenue, that is a
four-lane street. This is E1 Camino Real of course it is multi lane. Page Mill is multi lane. As
you come off of Oregon Expressway onto to go to California Avenue this is Birch, which is also
four lanes wide and three blocks long. So this is a heavily pedestrian area. People go to the post
office, they go to the Molly Stone’s, Cal Train station, and there is a pharmacy here. A lot of
Palo Alto centralists here. So the only safe street is really Ash in order to get for example from
here most people instead going this will go this way and then up Ash. From here they will also
up here. Very rarely will you see people traveling up here because it is difficult to cross and the
cars are speeding through here.
So this is the comer of Page Mill and E1 Camino. I would like for you to notice that there is a
driveway in and out into this building. Here is California Avenue again and right next door is
Citibank. You will see that there is an entrance and exit right there. Right here is a motel. You
will see there is an entrance and exit right there. This is the Olive Garden exit and entrance right
there. Now I am going to be looking from this comer to this yellow area here. As you can see
this is a protected area by VTA. You see this car? Nobody ever makes it over here. They
realize this is blocked. So this is pretty safe for being able to park. This is where I think we
should be able to put the entrance and exits. It sort of makes sense to dump 280 cars onto
Sheridan Avenue is just unconscionable. The reason people like to park here is because as you
move to California Avenue all those are two-hour spaces. So this is on time so people will want
to park here. So you can see even this car making a right off of Page Mill you see how it avoids
this area and it jumps into this because they know it will run into here. You saw in the other
slides how there is the VTA parking lot right there, entrance. This is previously how they used
to enter into this building. So I think this is really where the entrance belongs. Not on the side,
not dumping more cars onto our neighborhood and not making it more unsafe.
I read this about the public benefit that is proposed by Sunrise is the project and use itself. I
really don’t know how to characterize this. Saying that we have buildings and room and when it
is empty you can use it does not to me make for public benefit. So anyway 2701 E1 Camino Real
needs more work.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joe. Our next speaker is Angie Volterra and following Angie is Dr.
James Yee. Welcome, AnNe.
Ms. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. The proposed
Sunrise project would create significant impacts with respect to traffic circulation and parking.
These impacts are inadequately reviewed and disclosed in the "Draft Transportation Impact
Page !9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Analysis for Sunrise" prepared by Fehr & Peers. This report underestimates the project’s actual
traffic impacts.
First, I disagree with the report’s assumptions regarding trip distribution for the proposed
development. During the past three years, I have made a considerable number of trips to and
from the Silverwood complex immediately adjacent to the site under discussion. The Fehr &
Peers assumptions about trip distribution are actually Fehr & Peers’ estimates or they are really
almost best guesses about how the traffic will distribute itself and they are used to calculate the
number of trips generated by the project and they really don’t correlate with my experience.
Also using a trip generation rate per resident the estimated number of trips generated by the
facility would increase traffic along Sheridan at a point west of Ash by more than 25% which
would be a significant impact based on the City’s criteria. The project would also create
significant parking impacts on Sheridan, which is a narrow local street already heavily used for
street parking weekdays as well as on Sundays, the latter because of the church located on the
comer. The report fails to adequately and clearly analyze and document the facility’s parking
needs. Many visitors and probably a number of staff would park along Sheridan exacerbating
parking demand and congestion there. As pointed out, the driveways would eliminate some
much-needed parking along Sheridan. Moreover, one of the stated public benefits being used to
justify a PC is Sunrise’s offer to allow use of meeting space at the facility to schedule events
there open to all seniors in the Palo Alto area and its offer that the facility becomes a focal point
for Palo Alto seniors. Now this would further exacerbate traffic problems, congestion and
parking along Sheridan. Also double parked moving truck, moving residents and their
belongings into and out of the facility and double parked delivery trucks and vehicles to supply
100 residents plus round the clock staff would create further congestion along Sheridan. I
believe it would be unreasonable to designate much-needed daily parking on Sheridan
specifically for deliveries.
The applicant claims that most assisted living residents do not typically have vehicles and that
the parking lot would be primarily for visitors and staff. The Fehr & Peers report uses Sunrise
facilities in San Mateo, Petaluma and Sunnyvale to evaluate parking needs at the facility in Palo
Alto. However, according to this report the 34-onsite parking spaces at the 76-unit Sunrise
facility in San Mateo are for residents and staff only. Visitors to the San Mateo facility
apparently park on the street. That is my understanding from reading this draft report. At the
76-unit Petaluma facility it states that all staff are directed to park on the street not in the 29
parking spaces provided by the facility. I visited the Sunrise Belmont facility on a Monday at
2:00 PM. I counted 25 parking spaces onsite and of those 25 parking spaces there were also two
disabled spaces and 12 designated visitor spaces. Above and beyond those 25 spaces there was
one additional space that I saw was being used by the shuttle. When I arrived, I and another car
circled around a full parking lot looking for a parking space and I was directed by a staff member
to the nearby off site church/school parking lot to park. I was told by that staff member that staff
is also instructed to park at this offsite parking lot as well. So presumably at least from what I
was told by staff these 25 onsite parking spaces are being used primarily if not possibly
exclusively by residents and visitors. I was also told that a "handful" of the 50 residents have
cars and that the residents are quite independent. So here is a situation where 50 residents and
their visitors already occupy the 25-onsite parking spaces to over-capacity with staff parking
offsite and the facility is only currently 56% occupied. They anticipate there may be 39 more
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
residents and their visitors and staff in the furore utilizing parking as well. Also while at the
Belmont facility, I watched as a Sunrise shuttle maneuvered around the narrow front circular
driveway. I counted as the driver went back and forth five times in order to maneuver the shuttle
into the correct position at the front entrance and to allow a taxi to pull in and pass him. Each
time the shuttle backed up it made a loud disruptive beeping sound contributing to noise impacts
in the neighborhood..
I am very concerned about the lack of adequate environmental review of this project before this
meeting. Mr. Zemanek threw up trip generation figures comparing the project to current zoning.
This was done really without adequate detail and information regarding trip distribution,
standards of significance, etc. Unless you are presented with detailed information I think it is
really incomplete and not really appropriate and should not be presented in this manner because
it is quite misleading. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, AnNe. Our next speaker is Dr. James Yee followed by Yeuen Kim
and followed Sanjeet Thadani.
Dr. James Yee, 435 Sheridan Avenue, #302,~Palo Alto: Thank you for the oppommity to speak
tonight. I must say I am somewhat encouraged to hear the thoughtful and astute remarks of the
Commissioners who I have not had the oppommity to meet before.
I would like to just state for the record something I think we all know is that Palo Alto is a
unique community. We are not Mountain View. We are certainly not Union City. I don’t mean
to say we should be elitists but this is a unique community. I have worked as a senior executive
for Syntex plus Roche for over 20 years and I can tell you when I go to other parts of the world
whether it is Bazel, Switzerland, New York, New Jersey, London that the Stanford Industrial
Park which Sy-ntex is part of is a jewel that everyone talks about that we are a uniquely beautiful
and wonderful community, for work and to live in. I only bring that up because you are setting
the legacy for the future. Whatever is built here is going to last for frankly it is going to out live
most of us in this room. I would like to encourage you to be thinking about are we setting a
legacy where we will continue Palo Alto as a unique community, the industrial park being
unique, Stanford being unique, that I have no Opposition to providing assisted living spaces in
our communities but if it is chosen to be in this particular location which is a stone’s throw from
the industrial park and from Stanford I would like to see it be unique and something to be a
legacy that we can all, I don’t think it should be a Sunrise place like the one in Petaluma. I don’t
think it should be like the Sunrise place in Oakland because Palo Alto again is a unique place and
I hope you will continue your questioning and thinking about that on behalf of all the neighbors.
For a number of the neighbors who couldn’t be here today I can tell you everyone I have talked
to in the unit who isn’t here to speak or hasn’t written a letter have the same general concerns
that Bill Hahn nicely summarized. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Mr. Yee. Yeuen Kim followed by Sanjeet Thadani. Welcome.
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Yeuen Kim, MD, 435 Sheridan Avenue, #309, Palo Alto: Thank you. Hopefully I will be brief
but I also want to thank the Commission for kind of being right on with some of the issues. I
really kind of echo Bill Hahn and Angie and Jim Yee and also Bob Curler’s comments.
I just want to give a personal perspective since I have five minutes. I moved to Sheridan Avenue
in 1996 when I was a lowly intern at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. We lived in an
apartment at 345 and we loved it because we could just walk to California Avenue. When the
oppommity came to buy a place and we had enough money we bought at Silverwood. We really
love our neighbors. I feel really blessed to have a church next to us that is so popular. I don’t go
to it but it just seems to add to the community. I have seen the gentleman in the wheelchair for
six years and never knew his name. I am so glad to meet him. So thank you again for this
oppommity just to present my personal perspective.
I again don’t want to see the neighborhood overrun by traffic. I think that defmitely Angie’s
points are excellent ones that I hope you will continue to consider. The other thing I wanted to
make sure and say is if this facility is built, again echoing Bob Cutler’s comments, I am not
opposed to it. I think it would be potentially a great neighbor. I think there should be some
consideration to stop signs being put at the corners of Ash and Sheridan because there have been
quite a few near misses in that area from the one-way. There are no stop signs on Ash, which is
nice because sometimes you can just book down that place but again it is dangerous. Those are
the only concerns I have. I think that is pretty much it so thank you very much for my
opportunity to speak.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. Sanjeet Thadani followed by Viviana Tul
followed by Clarice Arne. Welcome.
Mr. Sanjeet Thadani, 435 Sheridan Avenue, #111, Palo Alto: Thank you for this opportunity. I
am resident at Silverwood. I guess a lot of the concerns have been brought up by the committee
itself. I share concerns of Bill Hahn and Bob Cutler all the speakers before me. One of the main
things is that the Sunrise development is essentially kind of a hotel. They are going to have 300
meals a day cooked for each of the 100 residents that they are going to have. There are exhaust
fumes that are going to come out of the kitchen and given the situation wehave on Sheridan
today with regards to parking I totally trust that the Planning Commission will pay due respect to
our concems regarding these issues. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Sanjeet. Viviana Tul. Clarice Ame if you could perhaps move down
we will listen to you momentarily.
Ms. Viviana Tul, 410 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I have some concerns about traffic but
what I would like to discuss briefly is noise. We live right near E1 Camino and there are 50,000
cars that go up and down the street. So during the week it is almost a mute question whatever
noise they are going to make I doubt we will hear it because we will hear the cars. On the
weekends we get a little break and right now from where I live I can hear the air conditioning in
the bank building, which is across the street and down the ways. So I am really concerned about
you are going to have some things on the roof. I look forward to the weekend I say well finally I
can sit out on the porch maybe. I am not sure, they talked about some codes, some number, and I
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
would hope that the Planning Commission examines that and maybe they could put all that
machinery in the basement too because noise is really a big thing. On the weekends that is when
it is really an issue for me anyway because I can’t hear anything else during the week. Thank
you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Viviana. Clarice Arne followed by Shannon McEntee followed by
Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Clarice Arne, 410 Sheridan Avenue, #329, Palo Alto: Hi. I did want to say that I think the
senior assisted living project is a nice idea I am just concerned as most of the others are with the
density of the building, the traffic, the parking. I also wanted to bring up the issue of noise
pollution for the ambulances and fire engines that might be coming to that area. It is already I
think I hear at least two ambulances going by a day along Page Mill and E1 Camino. Some of
them do go up Sheridan because there is a building on, I think Birch and California, maybe it is
the senior people living there, but that was kind of more or less another concern I wanted to
bring up. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Shannon McEntee followed by Joy Ogawa and Dale Reed.
Ms. Shannon McEntee, 1310 Harwat Drive, Los Altos: Thanks, I will be repeating what a lot of
people have already said but I do want to repeat it just for emphasis. My main concerns are also
the parking shortage, which exists. By the way I have a condo at 410 Sheridan. That is a big
concern but I think probably my biggest concern is the noise pollution that this proposed
building will create. There is already as Clarice just mentioned so much noise pollution in that
area both from traffic and although Herb Foster, one of the residents at the building, mentioned
that this building will probably block some of the noise I would say that it may block some of the
noise from that intersection which is a very busy intersection but it will also create a lot of noise
which would be right there by our windows, doors closing, stopping, these trucks unloading,
idling, etc.
In addition I wanted to echo what Clarice said about ambulances. It has been my experience that
there are a lot of ambulances in that neighborhood already. It is my experience that with senior
centers you have a lot of ambulance traffic because elderly people have emergency occurrences I
am sure much more often than younger people do. We already have a lot of ambulances there on
that big intersection and also nearby there is unit where there seem to be a lot of emergency calls.
I am concerned about that location that you pointed out where the delivery trucks will be
stopping and unloading. To me it seems a very inefficient way to stop there on Sheridan and
then handcart everything all the way around the building. Those handcarts would be clattering
and making noises while those trucks are sitting and idling and both making noise and creating a
lot of air pollution while they do that. That is a big concern.
I would also like to say that I think the public benefit room is a very specious claim. I think
probably we all feel like that. I would say that if it came to be that that was the case and that
people actually came to the empty dining room to have meetings that again that would create
even more traffic problems and parking problems. So I think that the ingress and egress location
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
in that building is really a poor choice and I would much prefer to see that on the E1 Camino side
as the one gentleman pointed out v~ould make a lot more sense and reduce the traffic on
Sheridan. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Shannon. Joy Ogawa. Good evening, Joy.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Yale Street in College
Terrace not in this immediate neighborhood but I am very sympathetic with the residents of this
neighborhood. Goal T-5 of the Comp Plan says, "A transportation system with minimal impacts
on residential neighborhoods." This is a stated goal of the Comp Plan, minimal impacts on
residential neighborhoods. Policy T-4 of the Comp Plan says, "Maintain a hierarchy of streets
that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors and local streets."
E1 Camino is an arterial. Sheridan is a local street. An arterial is defined in the Comp Plan as a,
"major roadway mainly serving through traffic, takes traffic to and from expressways and
freeways and provides access to adjacent properties." So the Comp Plan tells us to minimize
impacts in residential neighborhoods and to direct traffic toward arterials as opposed to local
streets. The traffic access to this new development should be through E1 Camino as was the
previous use on the 2701 E1 Camino site.
My second point, eighty-one units per acre is more than twice the highest density allowed under
current zoning. To quote the Comp Plan, "Fifty dwelling units per acre is currently the highest
density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and is limited to sites designated transit oriented
residential and located within 2,000 feet of a transit station." Therefore the density of this
project is also in conflict with the Comp Plan. I believe this site is just over 2,000 feet from the
train station but even if it were to be considered transit oriented it is not transit oriented for the
use that Sunrise is proposing. The senior residents of this proposed facility are not going to be
using the train to commute to work. In fact this project would preclude the use of this property
for a truly transit oriented residential use that could take advantage of the proximity of the site to
public transit. The senior residents of this facility are not going to be using the train they are
going to be using the private shuttle or their own cars. Most of the visitors to this facility are
going to be using their cars and delivery trucks, etc. They are not going to use public transit.
This proposed proj ect actually squanders the opportunity to take advantage of the proximity of
this property to public transit.
Third I am very sad to see that the proposed project will result in loss of neighborhood serving
retail at this site. Every neighborhood deserves to have its neighborhood commercial zone
preserved for ground floor neighborhood serving uses. I think that changing the land use
designation of this property from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family Residential is an
act of hostility to the neighborhood.
Finally this neighborhood is turning into, I believe, the dumping ground for high density
residential for the City. Yet when I look at the land use map I see no public parks or recreational
facilities in this neighborhood. I see no schools or libraries in this neighborhood. I also look at
PC projects in this neighborhood, other PC projects, where there is supposed to be public plaza
as a part of the public benefit. Where the public plaza is now effectively closed to the public and
is being monopolized by a private restaurant, Caff4 Riace. So no open space, no parks, no public
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
benefits. It seems to me the City is plunging headlong towards turning this area into high density
residential and for lack of a better word a slum area without supporting infrastructure services or
open space. One of the reasons I believe this is happening is because this neighborhood has been
the area of least resistance, the pathway of least resistance, in this City. I didn’t see people from
this neighborhood at the City forum on the Zoning Ordinance Update on Saturday. Do the
residents here even realize the Zoning Ordinance Update is considering zoning changes that
would allow floor area ratios, FARs, of up to 2.2? This project is proposed to have an FAR of
1.55. The difference between 1.55 and 2.2 is going to be huge. Huger projects are down the
road. Are the neighborhood residents even aware that there is currently rezoning going on Park
Boulevard to turn that into high-density residential properties? The City is going to squeeze as
much high density residential housing in this neighborhood as it can get away with, with the
rationale that it is close to transit. The other neighborhoods in Palo Alto, they are going to be
silent or they are actually going to encourage this to happen because better here than in their own
neighborhoods. Therefore, my advice to the residents of this neighborhood is that if you don’t
want that to happen then you need to start speaking out and getting involved right away not only
with this project but with the Zoning Ordinance Update and with the current rezonings of the
properties along Park Boulevard. I think you need to act now before it is too late. It is almost
too late. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Alright Joy, thank you for that. Our final speaker is Dale Reed. Welcome, Dale.
Mr. Dale Reed, 410 Sheridan Avenue, #453, Palo Alto: Thank you. I will be very brief. I am a
resident of 410 Sheridan and I am on the Board of Directors there. First of all I would like to say
that we have no objection in principle to a facility of this sort. Our principle concern is that there
does not seem to be adequate parking and especially parking for visitors. I would hope that the
Commission might request this proposal to be resubmitted with greater provision for off-street
parking. It might also be helpful to see some hard data from similar facilities from which the
actual parking requirements could be better estimated.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Dale. At this stage would the applicant care to make any-closing
remarks? We could give you three minutes for that.
Mr. Zemanek: Is it possible to get the slides back up? I will be very, very brief. First of all, and
again it is incumbent upon us to prove this to you, there is a very few real estate type project that
will generate less traffic impact parking, less than an assisted living facility. In fact somebody
one time told me that the only thing that generates less than us is if you had temporary storage.
So that is fact and it is incumbent on us to prove that you and we have spent lots of money doing
studies that we have not manipulated but we have allowed those studies to be done without
interference.
Let me just give you a very practical thing. If this project was not rezoned and you could have
35 let’s say luxury condominiums built On that entire property and let’s say that every
condominium generates seven car trips a day you are talking about 245 car trips a day versus our
280. At the same time you don’t think that people who will be in luxury condominiums or any
type of condominium won’t take the course of least resistance and park on the street many times
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
and their visitors park on the street? So no matter who is going to build on that site there will be
parking and there will be traffic. I think assisted living minimizes that as much as anything can.
I wanted to just show you something very briefly. This is a picture that I took yesterday morning
at nine o’clock. Now this is Sheridan, this is our property here. At nine o’clock there is very
little traffic here. For example if we had deliveries at this of the morning we are not interfering
with anybody..Obviously this Sheridan fills up later in the day again when the people from
California Avenue come and park their car. I witnessed one person doing that this morning,
parked their car and then bee lining it over to California Avenue. This is what it looks like.
Let me show you another shot I thought was rather interesting when we talk about public
transportation. This is a picture of the VTA lot at about 9:15 or 9:30 this morning. There isn’t
any traffic in there. Out of 35 parking spaces there are five cars there. There is the bus, the
number 22 is parked right here waiting. They picked no one up and dropped no one off. I
realized the 22 bus is the most popular bus on the peninsula. Somebody once told me it carries
more passengers that all of light rail carries. Whether that is true or not I don’t know.
Thirdly, I just want to mention to you that as far as ambulances are concerned keep in mind we
are not a skilled nursing facility. We probably average maybe one or two 911 calls a month.
Typically 911 people today do not keep sirens blaring when they come out on calls like we have
because typically it might be a slip and fall and somebody wants to have the person looked at.
So I just wanted to let you know that I feel that assisted living is going to be one of the least
impactors here and that no matter what happens somebody is ultimately going to build on that lot
and someone is ultimately going to create traffic and someone is ultimately going to be parking
on that street. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. So at this point everybody ready for a break? We will take a break
for seven minutes.
I would like to call the meeting back to order. I would like to close the public heating and return
the discussion back to the desk for Commissioners to ask questions of Staff. I am going to ask
the first one and then I will let Joe ask his question.
On page one of the Staff Report where you talk about recommendations and you are talking
about if the Commission acts favorably, etc., etc., this issue then goes on to the ARB. The
implication is that otherwise if we disapprove this application then it immediately goes to City
Council. Do we have a third alternative that Lisa you would wish to discuss?
Ms. Grote: There is another alternative and that is if you have concerns and comments that you
would like the applicant to respond to you can continue this hearing, outline those comments and
concerns for them, allow them to respond and continue this to another heating in front of you
before making a recommendation either to the ARB or to the City Council.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Joe.
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bellomo: You asked my question. In conjunction with the question Michael
asked is historically I just want to get a sense of where this project came from and how it evolved
to quite a far along stage in my opinion as far as-kind of the sketch of initial reviews. It is
imprinted. Having said that what was the applicant’s suggested to do on its kind of arrival of site
studies? To be candid we have had this where the applicant goes too far and there is a bit of
frustration that they take a project and solve the problem without the review and then we get into
this kind of rebuttal of them questioning or answering our questions with "that’s how we solved
the problem." So I want a sense quickly, I think this will help the other Commissioners as this
moves forward, how this, I know we have study sessions, was an ARB member privy to this
review? How has this gotten to this point?
Ms. Grote: We had a series of initial conversations with the applicant going over
Comprehensive Plan, land use designations, zoning, floor area ratios, height, the standard
development requirements. They did apply for and wanted to have an initial or a prescreening
with the City Council with probably less formed plans with more generic, more conceptual plans.
That unfortunately didn’t occur due to a heavy schedule in front of the City Council and heavy
agendas. So they opted to forego the initial review, prescreening, and come to you at your first
hearing for a Planned Community zone Change again still conceptual but probably a little more
developed than it might have otherwise been had that prescreening been a little more timely.
Commissioner Bellomo: Lisa, let me ask you this. As this moves forward to ARB, if it does or
doesn’t, they would need to develop the plans, the specific ARB submittal package, so this is
really still very conceptual. They in a sense wanted our feelings to move forward to ARB and
they the applicant chose to develop these drawings kind of far along. So it was their choice on
how to recommend or to show us this application?
Ms. Grote: It was their decision to show you this application. I am sure they went through a
number of iterations to get to this point. That may be part of what you want them to explain in
more detail when they come back to you.
Commissioner Bellomo: Would this go to a preliminary ARB review? Let’s say hypothetically
we say this is great move it forward. Does this go to a preliminary or does this go to a formal
review?
Ms. Grote: If you were to give the recommendation to move it forward to the ARB it would be
their formal ARB, it is not a preliminary ARB.
Commissioner Burt: As I looked at the drawing clarification regarding this building height it
looks like it is the peak of the roof that is the 44-plus feet. So my question on the roof height has
two aspects. According to our code how would this roof height be defined? Then according to
code how is the adjacent roof height defined on the Silverwood building?
Ms. Grote: We are going to need to take a closer look at the plans. To a mansard roof and to a
pitched roof it is usually the midpoint but we will look into that.
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: Okay. As you look into it will you look at the adjacent property as well?
Great. Second, one of the letters we received talked about the importance of preserving a tree
canopy I believe at the rear of the property separating iI from Silverwood if I understood the
letter correctly. Has Staff evaluated that issue? -~.~
Ms. Grote: They haven’t shown the existing trees on the plans. They are working with Dave
Docktor, our Arborist, to get the tree survey done and to identify those that would be preserved,
those that for some reasons be recommended for removal. That is one of the items at a
conceptual stage that they haven’t yet completed.
Commissioner Butt: Several of the speakers raised the issue of possibly having the underground
parking entrance and exit coming from E1 Camino. Has Staff evaluated that and do you have any
comments on that?
Ms. Grote: Typically we would not encourage access points off of a busy street such as E1
Camino. We don’t require existing curb cuts to be closed but we do encourage them to be
closed. When a project is located on a comer and there is a less well-traveled street we would
recommend for safety reasons that that street be used for points of access. Also, with the E1
Camino design guidelines we are trying to encourage an enhanced pedestrian street frontage with
curb cuts that does reduce that ability. It reduces the pedestrian environment and doesn’t make it
as desirable. So this was a way to improve that pedestrian environment, meet those E1 Camino
Real guidelines and have a safer access point off a quieter street.
Commissioner Burt: Next this is an area that has historically had density and has had a number
of projects in recent years that have been pretty dense in nature. To my knowledge there has not
been any true public space, parquet, added to this area to create significant common space
concurrent with the creation of greater density of private space. The impact fees designate over
$200,000 toward park impact fees. Has Staff evaluated the prospects for allocating those fees
and potentially others to create at a minimum a mini park in this area?
Ms. Grote: We would certainly be collecting the fees. It would be for parks, libraries and
community centers. We would be looking at the environmental impacts in the open space during
the environmental review of the project. We haven’t done a specific study in this area for the
need for a park but we can look at that as part of the environmental review. We also have in all
of those higher density projects that you have noted there are open spaces, common usable open
space requirements. So there is open space included in each of those developments, which is for
again it is not public open space, but it is for the benefit of those people who live in those higher
density projects. So that has been seen as a way in the past to deal with open space needs.
Commissioner Burt: My particular concern is in creating a true public space.
Ms. Grote: We would also need to look at any availability of land. There isn’t necessarily land
available to purchase or create a public park but we could look at that analysis per
Comprehensive Plan standards.
Commissioner Burt: I think that covers my questions at this time.
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Cassel: If this were continued would it be continued to a date certain or a date
uncertain?
Ms. Grote: You may want to talk with the applicant about that and when they think they can
come back and we can also look at some of the dates that are available. For remaining dates this
year there are a couple of cancelled meetings in November and December because of holidays.
So we would need to look at the availability of meeting agendasand time. There are some full
agendas coming up.
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is just more a case of technically do you do it as a date uncertain and then
decide that later?
Ms. Grote: You can do it as a date uncertain. That’sfine.
Chair Griffin: Both in the StaffReport and the applicant’s comments there is some discussion
about the VTA lot next door. The Staff Report talks about the potential desirability of being able
to combine the VTA area with the subject property. The applicant stated that there had been an
attempt to establish dialogue with VTA and it didn’t work out for some unknown reasons. I am
a little perplexed in that I’m familiar with a pretty extensive VTA program in San Jose to lease
air rights or perhaps sell a~ rights, I am not exactly sure how that works out, but VTA is engaged
with developers in San Jose to do this sort of thing. The question occurs to me why in San Jose
and not in Palo Alto? Does anyone have an answer for that?
Ms. Grote: We can’t require the VTA to become involved in this project. We can certainly
encourage it. I know they have been involved in other projects previously in other cities. We
can attempt to contact them. I don’t believe there is a legal mechanism for us to require them to
become involved in the project. If they at this point were not interested we would need to accept
that.
Chair Griffin: So did City Staff make an attempt to do this or this was left to the applicant?
Ms. Grote: We have not made an attempt. We can certainly make a phone call. I don’t know if
we will meet with any more luck than the applicant did but we can certainly make a phone call
and talk to them.
Commissioner Burt: At the same time can you pursue how it is or explore with San Jose City
officials how they were able to achieve a comparable objective?
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I do have another question. We have another assisted living facility in town.
It had some trouble making the BMR program work with that facility. Could you explain what
some of the options are and how that is being explored at this time? It is a wonderful benefit if
we could get BMR units in this.
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: In the project that you are referring to one of the issues with the BMR program there
was that they only provided the unit at a reduced rate they didn’t provide the services at a
reduced rate. So as the cost of services went up it made it difficult for the resident to continue to
afford to live there. So even though their unit was reduced in cost or price it became more and
more difficult to stay there. That is why in this project we have said the unit and the services
need to all be provided at a below market rate so that people who move in can continue to live
there and the unit and the services continue to be affordable.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Does that provide a greater benefit in terms of the benefit of the project than
just the standard BMR program?
Ms. Grote: Staff believes that it does. That is one of the reasons why it is one less unit. It is 11
rather than 12 because the overall benefit to those that are going to live there is greater.
Chair Griffin: To follow up on that, so your concept is that the BMR arrangement would cover
the monthly rent as well as all of the auxiliary services. I saw the word basic maintenance fees
and I though that was a little vague. What exactly is that? Is it turnkey or is it everything or is
there still something extra?
Ms. Grote: It is the basic package. Again the BMR agreement isn’t finalized yet but it is the
basic package, which is food and housekeeping services.
Chair Griffin: So there would be additional items for the resident to pay herself if I understand
you.
Ms. Grote: Her or himself, right. It might be some sort of other types of personal assistance.
That could vary greatly with the individual whether or not they need help bathing and dressing
and things like that.
Chair Griffin: Question? Comments? You’re on.
Commissioner Burt: If it is okay with the Commission I will take a stab at making a
recommendation that this project be returned to us under a date uncertain with the following
requests for review and additional modification to the project. Then I will assume that other
Commissioners may have additional ones or to see whether they agree with this list. So let me
just toss them out. I can either do it as a motion or do it for discussion purposes and see if we
have consensus.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do it as a motion, it gets it on the floor. I’ll second it and we can go from
there.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: The motion to have this return under a date uncertain with the request that
the applicant and Staff return to us with additional information or modifications to the project in
the following categories. First evaluate the impact of the mass, scale and transition of the
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
building with particular concern to the rear at the Silverwood condominiums. Second, to
evaluate the public benefits and in particular evaluating the potential of a mandated TDM
program for employees of the Sunrise Development. For greater specifics on the senior public
meeting space. Potentially to look at parking benefits to offset the loss of on-street parking on
Sheridan and creation of a potential available off-street parking to offset that loss. And other
public benefits that may be appropriate due to the PC nature of this project. Next, evaluation of
the trip and parking analysis and verification of comparable developments whether Sunrise or
other for similar types of development and a verification of the assumptions regarding trip
generation and parking requirements for such a development. Next, evaluation of noise
mitigation to the extent possible. Next, evaluation of stop signs or other measures to try to assist
in street safety. Finally, this may need to be outside of this project but an encouragement to Staff
to begin the process of exploring opportunities for true common public space and to utilize the
impact fees for public parks to apply them to this area for the benefit of the residents of this
particular area.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat, I would prefer that be outside the realm of this motion. That is not quite
reasonable in terms of the obligation to this particular applicant. This is an applicant that is not
going to need a lot of park space, not going to use a lot of park space, not going to impact it.
Commissioner Burt: Rather than looking at a particular, it is a PC and it has these impact fees, if
we can simply have as part of the evaluation of this project, not a mandate but an evaluation, on
how those impact fees can be applied to the benefit of this immediate area as opposed to a
citywide park fund.
Chair Griffin: Can we have a second on this and we will discuss it further?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I seconded it before it started.
Commissioner Bellomo: I have some friendly suggestions or amendments to that.
Chair Griffin: Joe.
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Bellomo: First of all, I would like just say for the record that I am very
supportive the use here. The scale, you suggest the scale and impact of scale and transition at the
rear of the property. I would like to suggest that the frontage of the building as well as the south
side since the VTA will be vacant apparently for some time also be looked at as far as scale and
transition and the E1 Camino specifically be looked at with the possibility of pulling the building
forward and providing either the appearance of an urban texture, kind of an urban fabric, that you
are transitioning into kind of a neighborhood serving environment. I am not asking to explore
the uses though a mixed use with a neighborhood serving element could be very successful in a
situation like this. I would like to see really the front edges on E1 Camino looked at carefully.
The motor court I feel when we start thinking of reducing curb cuts because right now the project
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
has four total with the service curb cut in the back and the trash. I think to minimize curb cuts
really starts changing the site. The site therefore could change the general edges of the project.
So I would like to see E1 Camino looked at carefully. Even if we had some concept sketches on
what ifs could really help us engage in a kind of dialogue with the applicant. I think it could
really help versus going so far that we feel we are kind of modifying something that I don’t think
we should modify. I think we should be talking about it holistically. So Pat I would just like to
amend that and I have some others that I would like to talk to also.
Commissioner Burt: IfI might on that general concept I would be receptive to including mass,
scale and transition concerns on other aspects of the project and not limit it to the rear. I
wouldn’t be prepared at this time to be overly specific on what those should be and in particular
with deference to your architectural expertise, Joe, a lot of what we as a Commission need to do
is at that appropriate time defer to the entire ARB. As far as on the E1 Camino front I am torn
between the objective that you have stated about that urban appeal and at the same time I have
been attracted to this notion of this little shared plaza in front by the bus station. So my answer
is yes I certainly wouldn’t want to preclude examination of those other massing and scale issues
but I wouldn’t want to attempt to prescribe changes in any way.
Commissioner Bellomo: I agree with that and I am in support of a frontage park but I am also
feeling that the building should transition across E1 Camino thus allowing it to speak to the urban
entity that I think the guidelines speak to and the ZOU speak to. I would like to also say I am not
micromanaging in the sense of what the ARB will do but when we are suggesting or asking for
this to come back to us I think it is importantthat we are specific how it is returned back to us
and that we are not frustrating the applicant and they are asking for this to move forward. So in
deference to what you have said I do think they need specific detail of what we want back. I
don’t want to leave the applicant with the question, what do they want to see back here? So it
can move forward. If it is a sketch that’s fine. I don’t believe we need hardened models. I think
we need sketches, I think we need to see it so we can suggest what moves forward.
Commissioner Burt: That sounds great. Joe, just a point of clarification ifI could from you.
When you are envisioning the E1 Camino frontage when you were talking about engaging with
that entire streetscape are you envisioning something along the lines that the building may extend
the entire length and perhaps some slight repositioning of the drop off area that would enable the
building to extend the length of the street face?
Commissioner Bellomo: Exactly, and I think there is a possibility of engaging this courtyard or
U that also kind of deflects west sun that creates a central courtyard or basically a vehicular
courtyard that could service the ramp. I know it is kind of a divisionary thing andit needs to be
looked at carefully but I do think with that concept you could circulate traffic in and out along
the front of Sheridan node and get you in and out of E1 Camino without transitioning into the
neighborhood. So I think there are site planning devices that I think could enable cars to
transition in. I think along with that a truck, pedestrian and vehicular rationale, a study, again
sketches that show the neighborhood how in fact trucks and deliveries really are scripted here. I
know you have done that and I appreciate the outreach you have done with the neighborhood but
I think that those types of rationales could help us understand it clearly and the neighbors to see
this kind of circulation pattern. So those are the specific things I believe need to be talked about.
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Also I would like to add to noise, odor, just because there are exhaust fans. I think with noise the
ordinance speaks to the noise issues but I would like to see where you might have a four-pipe
system where in fact the main units would be placed. I think closer to E1 Camino is certainly
more advantageous where you can get it into a pit.
Open space, I think it combines the whole sense of kind of the redefinition of open space and
how in fzct it really does work for both the user and the public I think is important. I think you
have alluded to that and showed us those type of relationships but maybe solidify it into an open
space that really shows how it is used.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think both Pat and Joe have included most of the concerns that I have. I
had some comments on top of that. The only thing I don’t agree with is the mixed use. I think
this is indeed a mixed use, it is a residential and in some senses it is commercial in the sense that
it is serving those people who are there. That is plenty of mixed use in that process itself and I
would rather not see something else added into the system. Most of my concerns you have been
speaking to in terms of height. I think we need a daylight plane sketched to see where that
sunlight is going to help us out and help people understand it. May I make some comments or do
you want to add more comments?
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to add one other. I would like to add a sustainable
checklist. Actually something that we can see and the ARB will get into but I think that can
drive also some of the site design that we see, mitigation of sunlight, really looking at sunrise
and sunset and how this building works within that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I also want to say that I think it is nice that you are bringing forth this
project. I have sort of schizophrenic feeling one is that this is within our 2,000 feet that we hope
in the future to have put into an area of high intensity. While this is high intensity it didn’t have
to be in this spot but you have come forward with that and you have the right to make choices
about the piece of land that is there and within the current zoning it has not been changed. When
you talk about changing it we are not talking about doing the transit oriented, it is not in place at
this time. The use of parks and schools here, we are paying the park and school impact fee but
the demand on these particular residences for parks and schools are not going be there. It is
going to be internal and we need to remember that when we talk about school use. It will be
much less impact on the schools to have this project there.
I am presuming that the particular need that we are serving here is an urgent need in the
community. We can check those numbers before you come back. I am sure you have done some
studies that show that and we can get complimentary information and you can show us.
This is indeed a low intensity use for this spot in terms of parking. That doesn’t mean we
shouldn’t be dealing with these other issues we have been talking about. I think we do need to
recognize that this will need less parking space than would a standard condominium complex on
this corner or rental on this corner.
I am concerned with the turnaround area. I have had experience in assisted living facilities,
accessing them in exactly this kind of a circle and it has not been adequate. You may feel it is
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
adequate but as a person who is using it it is not. This has been more than one on a personal
basis so I really feel that needs to be looked at.
I think this has to be a PC. We don’t have a good zone for this particular use and this is an
excellent use for a PC. One of the benefits for PCs that we don’t tend to remember is if the use
changes the item comes back to us for review again and the community often forgets that that is
a benefit. We-think we have something in that spot, if it is a large project in a zone and someone
wants to change the use they can change it to any use in that zone. With a PC it comes back to
us. So if anything happens at some time in the future that they didn’t want to use this facility for
this use it would come back to the City to be reviewed again for any other use.
Ambulances, I think all of us hope some day that there will be an ambulance available for us. I
think that we all hope someday that we will have a facility to live in if we need such a facility.
We need to look at where these ambulances are going and how they will enter but I am afraid
that is going to be a noise impact.~at we are going to be grateful exists. Anyone who lives
anywhere near one of the major roads including Middlefield Road, and I live several blocks off
it, experiences a lot of ambulance noise. That’s life. I was very glad when I needed it that it
went there.
I think everything else that I have is, the BMR is an interesting one if you can make that work.
There may be some problems with the same thing going up. It doesn’t include medication
delivery and it doesn’t include any kind of baths and services that people often need at this age
so those costs will also go up as time goes on. You may have the same problem again.
I think that is all the comments I have. I am glad you are trying to build this project on this site
and I am sure we can work out the details.
Chair Griffin: I would like to talk some more about the schizophrenia that you alluded to
because from the very moment that I looked at this project the thing that leaped out at me from
the Staff Report was the fact that we were using this site which has been identified in the
Housing Element for a land use that didn’t do a single thing for our jobs/housing imbalance. It
just amazes me that we are pursuing this project, not that there is anything wrong with seniors I
guess I am practically one myself, but a project that occupies a place in the Comp Plan that was
specifically identified within the 2,000 foot radius of the train depot, that is on the E1 Camino
with access to the number 22 bus line. To me that space cries out for some sort of high-density
housing is provided for workers that have jobs at Stanford or the Research Park or are otherwise
malting use of the transit facilities that are there. I don’t know what the demand for senior
assisted living housing is in the mid peninsula. I don’t know how many individual rooming units
we have available here in town or on the mid peninsula and I would be interested as this project
presumably comes back to us for another look that we are able to examine that in more detail and
that you folks on Staff would provide us with greater detail on that. I am wanting this area saved
for a transit oriented development and not for this type of housing. So that being said I think
maybe we are, yes, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: As a follow up to your concern one of the things that I think the applicant
alluded to and which I would be interested in seeing more detailed information on is any analysis
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
that has been done on the way in which a project like this liberates housing elsewhere in the City
for families as we have a more aging population who have historically owned single family
homes and they are looking for more appropriate living space, what portion of the residents for
this sort ofpr0ject we can reasonably assume would have been transitioning from other
residential property in the City and thereby liberating that property for families and working
families that would address the jobs/housing imbalance. So if we could get some additional
informationon that I think that would be welcome.
Chair Griffin: Great. I guess one more that I will add is the perceived lack of public benefits. I
am not seeing here. I am not buying the concept that this project is by and of itself a sufficient
public benefit to grant PC zoning. I would like to see a lot more work done on the BMR scheme.
I agree with Phyllis that theoretically this would be a marvelous thing to have I just don’t think
11 units cuts the mustard and would like to see the applicant take a look at working on that
further.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to add to that public benefit comment, Michael. We talked
about Trees for E1 Camino. I would like to see specific detailed plans showing where those trees
for E1 Camino would occur in that type of benefit. Also I would like to .add and I understand that
we are not the ARB and this project will go to them but I would just like to suggest that the
expression of architecture here that whatever form it .takes is honest. E1 Camino I don’t believe
wants any sort of derivative architecture. I think if it is a concrete building it should express
some of that. I just want to caution the applicant as it goes through the process about getting
feedback from maybe some ARB members as you go and talk with Staff about the architecture
stylistic approach.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering is the motion clear the way we have worked at it here?
Commissioner Burt: Well, a question for the other members. We have had a series of comments
and we had a series of things that were explicitly in the motion. Is the Commission comfortable
with the keeping the comments as comments with the understanding that Staff will be giving us
response to those comments and the specific items that were in the motion and what was
accepted as friendly amendments to motion those items are part of the motion. If that is
acceptable to the Commission then I think we have something we can vote on.
Vice-Chair Cassel: As long as the Staff is comfortable with what we are doing. Normally we
would make a general motion and the comments would go with it.
Ms. Grote: I think we are comfortable with what you have said and what the motion is. Some of
this information though will be coming forward from the applicant as well, some of the things
that you have asked for but we will certainly be working with them to get that presented to you.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Bialson absent due to conflict and Commissioners Holman and
Packer absent)
Chair Griffin: All right then we will call for the question. All those in favor of the motion as we
have discussed it here say aye. (ayes) Opposed? We carry unanimously with Commissioners
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Bialson, Packer and Holman absent. This item is now completed. Thank you for your
participation and we look forward to seeing you all back here again when this item comes up in
the furore. : ~’, ~
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to express an appreciation for the good will and
constructive approach that have been demonstrated by both the applicant and the adjacent
neighbors. Not all of you folks have been to all of our hearings but we don’t always get such
constructive participation and it is very appreciated. Thank you.
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
April 14, 2004
Verbatim Minutes
DRAFT EXCERPT
2701 El Camino Real*: Application by Stmrise Development Inc. on behalf of
Morris Page Mill, LLC for a Zone Change request fi:om Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40)
to a Planned Community District for the construction of a four-story 63,500
square-foot senior assisted living facility with 81 units, one level of underground
parking (44 spaces) and associated site improvements.
Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared
for this project. File Numbers: 03-ARB-05, 03-EIA-15, 03-PC-02.
Mr. Reich: Thank you Chair Griffin and Commissioners. As noted the project is a four-
story, 81-unit assisted living facility with 44 parking spaces in an underground garage.
The applicant has requested the PC zone change primarily due to the fact that neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance defines this type of use. The Zoning
Ordinance does not offer guidance or set parameters for assisted living. This is special
needs housing providing assisted living for seniors and persons living with dementia. It
is important to recognize that this use does not generate the same level of impacts on
community facilities and traffic that would generally be associated with typical housing
units. Because the residents don’t drive senior assisted living facilities generate a very
low volume of traffic. The application of multi-family zoning housing standards to an
assisted living facility is not appropriate. With the increasing number of seniors it is
important to recognize that there is a growing need for this type of housing in Palo Alto.
The applicant has signed a BMR agreement whereby Sunrise will provide rent and
services to 12 persons living in the home. This is a very significant achievement because
the service component has never been provided in Palo Alto for assisted living facilities.
The services include meals three times a day, laundry services, housekeeping services
will be provided to seniors that otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to live in this type of
facility.
The proposed public benefits are also significant. One of the most significant public
benefits is the fact that the service component will be provided for those 12 residents at
below market rates. The service component is far more costly than the rent so this
component is definitely a significant benefit to those that are able to qualify for this
benefit. Some of the services included, I went over that, housekeeping, laundry service
and meals per day. Other public benefits included in the project are two mini parks or
landscape areas that are provided at E1 Camino and Sheridan. These parks will provide
areas for pedestrians to stop and take advantage of the landscaping and seating that are
provided. Twenty thousand dollars will be provided to the Trees for Palo Alto program
for median improvements and tree planting along E1 Camino. Meeting spaces for
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Avenidas are proposed within the project. The Avenidas proposal is fairly limited but
will provide a benefit in meeting space that they actually need because the space is
limited in their facilities. Sunrise has also offered to provide access to Sunrise facility
with their shuttle buses to avoid and limit traffic that may be associated with this benefit.
Public art is also proposed as a part of the public benefit. The applicant is working with
the Palo Alto Public Art Commission to come up with a proposal. This proposal may
include an art piece or a mural or possibly a decorative treatment on the wrought iron
fence that will surround the front of the property.
Since the last Planning Commission hearing review the following changes have been
made to the proposal to address comments from the Commission, the ARB and the
public. The BMR proposal has been revised to include an additional person to receive
rent and services from 11 to 12 persons. Again the inclusion of the service component is
a very significant benefit. The architectural style of the building has changed pretty
dramatically. If you remember from the previous hearing it was more of a Craftsman
style and the architectural style has been modified to be more contemporary, a little bit
more urban feel to address the urban nature of E1 Camino Real. The fire access lane has
been shifted from the E1 Camino frontage to Sheridan. There are several reasons for
doing this. One is that it provided a better treatment on E1 Camino for the mini park in
terms of aesthetics for views along E1 Camino. The parking garage has been expanded
on the Sheridan side to go underneath the area between the building and the property line.
This provided an area for the fire lane to go. In addition to the fire lane shifting six
additional parking spaces have been added to the project for a total of 44 spaces. The
rear yard setback has been increased by 11 feet, six inches moving the building farther
away from the Silverwood building.
I would like to take a few moments to go over some of the questions and comments that
have been raised about the adequacy of the transportation impact analysis. The
Transportation Division has reviewed the TIA and has concluded that the project will not
result in significant environmental impacts in regards to traffic and parking. The TIA has
been questioned because it doesn’t consider the cumulative impacts of projects that may
someday be proposed on the housing inventory sites. The identification of these sites for
potential housing in the future does not constitute a project under CEQA. This would the
equivalent of having to determine the traffic volume that would potentially be generated
on every site in the specific vicinity of the project if it were to be redeveloped at some
point in.the future to the most intensive use that would be allowed by the zoning. The
claim that the TIA is not adequate because Fehr & Peers used sign-in sheets to calculate
trip generation rates, the trip generation rates were not based on sign-in sheets. Traffic
counts were taken and the sign-in sheets were used as an additional source of data. The
trip distribution routes provided in the TIA are based on methodology and targets the
most efficient routes of travel made by traffic and transportation engineering
professionals. The TIA applied a three percent trip reduction factor to the project
because of its proximity to Cal Train. They have also applied a five percent trip
reduction factor due to the provision of transit passes to employees through the TDM
program. The tire index threshold would not be triggered even if both of these factors
were not applied to the project. The conditions of approval require that the TDM plan
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that was proposed in the Transportation Impact Analysis be implemented. This includes
a transit coordinator, free transit passes to employees and a guaranteed ride home
program. This is a positive and proactive program. All employees will be offered transit
passes. The most significant volume of traffic is generated by the employees of the
facility. The reality is that there aren’t very many people commuting to this facility each
day and while the TDM will be helpful in the reduction of trips there won’t be many trips
to this project. It is not necessary that Sunrise provide transit passes for the residents of
the facility because they typically do not drive. In addition Sunrise also provides
transportation for the residents with a van. The traffic impact produced by the public
benefit by the use of Avenidas will also be a minimal impact.
Delivery trucks may not double-park on Sheridan. This is a condition of approval. With
the loading zone on E1 Camino and the service entrance at the rear of the building next to
E1 Camino it is not likely that trucks will double-park on Sheridan. Smaller trucks such
as mail vehicles may use the auto court for delivery. There is room for trucks to park in
the auto court with ample room for vehicle circulation.
The Sunrise project will not limit potential development of the VTA site and will not
create safety issues. It is able to adequately allow vehicles to enter and exit without
incident currently.
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Council on May 3. Staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions
that you may have. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Before we hear from the applicant do my colleagues have any questions
they would like to post to Staff at this time? I would say Russ that speaking for myself I
voted against this item the last time we heard it and so I am going to be particularly
interested in any comments you might make having to do with perceived under-parking
of the project and other traffic related difficulties associated with this. I am not going to
ask you a specific question now but we shall get into it further and if the applicant has
any interest in addressing those general topics I would be curious as to what your
response might be. Having said that we will now open the hearing and invite the
applicant to make a 15-minute presentation. Good evening, Mr. Zemanek. How are
you?
Mr. Dan Zemanek, Senior Vice President, Sunrise Development, Inc., 249 View Street,
Mountain View: Very good, thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, let me just take
the cap off of the projector. Thank you very much again for the time tonight. This has
been a long joumey. We started this in the fall of 2002 and here we are in April of 2004
and we really appreciate your time.
First of all what I would like to do is kind of take you through where we were last time
when we saw in November. This is the plan that we had presented to you at the time. It
was the same size from the standpoint of units, 81-unit building, and at the time we
brought it here there was some concern about this run of roof and building along
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sheridan. The fact that we had the entryway, which was oriented toward E1 Camino
Real, which is here and obviously this is Sheridan. So based upon that we went and
made some changes. We came up with this building today, which is the plan that has
gone through the ARB. What we did is we took a building that you saw before and we
really broke it down into various segments creating a look of two, three and four story
components that makes it look like individual buildings with rooflines that are really
broken up. To give you some idea of comparing the two buildings side by side or top and
bottom this is the building that we had previously and this is the building that we came
out with again creating some activity here along E1 Camino Real which we consider to be
important and we considered that on the basis of what you told us as well.
This is an architect’s perspective of the building taken from standing basically in the air
over Sheridan and E1 Camino Real. Again the reason that I wanted to show you this was
to show you what is really happening. A lot of articulation, a lot of things happening on
the roofline, the building moves in, it moves out and it gives very pleasant siting visually.
Again, we are trying to create some activity along E1 Camino Real as well.
We took various perspectives of the building. We took a perspective that was standing
back at the northeast corner of the building looking back toward Page Mill and E1
Camino Real. This is the VTA parking lot and of course this is Sheridan. This was the
picture you just saw in a smaller version. Then we are here at E1 Camino Real and
Sheridan looking at the southwest view of the building. This would be a view looking
from E1 Camino Real and Page Mill toward the building looking at the southeast portion,
again the building has a lot of articulation. The bus stop, the southeast portion of the
building again. Then finally a look again at the southeast area, this is Silverwood
condominiums, our neighbor to the north and to the northeast.
The resolved issues, we have an 81 unit Sunrise assisted living home, 44 parking spaces
all underground. When we were here last time we had a couple of spaces above ground.
We had 40 spaces in total and we have increased the spaces to 44. The deliveries will all
be on E1 Camino Real and deliveries will be made to a service entrance on the back of the
building off of E1 Camino Real, close to E1 Camino Real. The access to the underground
parking garage is now near the building center and we will show this in a second. Our
van is going to be parked underground as well. It wilt not be up at the top. Our setbacks
from Silverwood are now 30-plus feet and 40-plus feet from the north and from the east
as well.
Just taking very quickly through some of the alternative plans and iterations that we had
shown before. This was the original plan we brought where we had the auto court and
the entrance kind of facing and oriented toward E1 Camino Real. We got enough
comments about that that we really changed as we moved through the process and we
began to move that element toward the center of the building. This particular iteration,
4.1, is the plan that we had here in November that you approved to move onto the ARB
and for the ARB to refine. This was the refined plan that finally came out of our several
meetings with ARB and working with them as well as with Staff. As you can see we
have cars entering by the main entryway and either those cars will exit back onto
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sheridan or they will continue on and go down below to the parking garage and park. On
one of the original iterations that we had we had the parking garage entrance here next to
Silverwood. The neighbors did not like that idea so we have moved it away and we have
kept all of the activity now centered in the building itself. At the time that we brought it
to you before we had the emergency fire lane here off of E1 Camino Real. Now that the
building mass has been moved closer to E1 Camino we have opened this area up and we
have put the emergency fire lane here. Now heaven forbid that we should ever get a fare
the only time this would ever be used is in the event of a fire in the building to make the
150-foot hose pull that the fire deparl~ent would require. This is the site plan with all of
the goodies. We are trying to create some real amenity areas an amenity area at the
northwest portion, which we call a little mini park and an area of mini park down in the
southeast portion. I believe at the last meeting we had in front of you Commissioner
Burt, you had mentioned the fact that there was a dearth of park area and we are trying to
create something that would answer that and allow neighbors as well as pedestrians to use
one of these two areas. We are trying to let our edge look like a semi-public area so we
can bring the people to our site as well as bring the site to the people.
The four issues that we really have that have to be discussed tonight obviously is senior
living, is it an appropriate use for 2701 E1 Camino Real? Number two, we have modified
the plan to respond to the urban design guidelines. Number three, Sunrise of Palo Alto
results in no significant impacts. Number four, Sunrise of Palo Alto provides
extraordinary public benefits and I am anxious to get into those with you.
First of all, is it an appropriate land use? The elderly population is rapidly increasing.
This is a chart showing what happens from the years 2000 to 2010 in the United States.
The population will increase by nine percent, 85 year and over population will increase
by 34%. That is an amazing increase compared to the general population and that is
happening all over. This is kind of a crude scan that I did but this was something that
Avenidas had done some time ago. I believe it was a study done in 1997. Out of close to
60,000 residents in Palo Alto above 65 years of age are over 9,000. So we think that our
home will satisfy an unfulfilled need. The 1997 Avenidas study said that the 85 year old
and greater population would double from 1990 to 2020. By the way, i believe you have
about 3,000 people who are 80 years old and more here in Palo Alto today. Assistance
needs for people 75 years going to that ten year increase to 85 their needs actually double
for assistance, the type of assistance that Sunrise provides. And 70% of the 90-plus age
group requires some type of assistance.
Too few assisted living units in Palo Alto. There are very few assisted living and
certainly no state of the art assisted living units in Palo Alto. Sunrise of Palo Alto will be
the first one built in a long time here. This would allow residents who lose their
independence to stay in Palo Alto and not be forced to leave Palo Alto and move to an
adjoining community. Sunrise represents a substantial percentage of new housing supply
from the 2003 Housing Element that we would build on that comer. We are located in an
area with other PC zoned properties. As you can see this is the square block from Ash, E1
Camino and Sheridan. Our site is here. If we were allowed to continue and go to PC
there would be two additional PC major projects to the north of us and the only project
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
¯ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
that would be non-PC in that square block would be the VTA parking lot, which is PF.
There is also a PC zoned piece of property right across the street.
Sunrise has responded to urban design goals. We have shifted the mass of the building,
which should be away from Silverwood and toward E1 Camino Real. We have broken
the facade into modules, which I mentioned to you before to give the building the appeal
and the look of having separate buildings along Sheridan. We have enlarged the setbacks
and garden areas adjacent to Silverwood. The curb cuts on Sheridan which are four today
will be three when we are finished with the project. We have modified the design per the
ARB process. We have created an attractive building, we have created attractive
landscape surrounds, we are welcoming the public spaces around E1 Camino Real and our
Sheridan perimeter, we are providing bike parking for employees and visitors, we are
adding to the residential character of this already residential neighborhood and we are
going to be concerned about sustainable issues as we do our construction.
The animation of the E1 Camino Real edge and this is important to see what is there
today. It is very drab and very dreary along the south border of our property. This is the
property. This is Silverwood condominiums. You can see that it is not conducive to
somebody walking and strolling. Looking to the west, and this is the property here, this
is the bus stop, the VTA lot is here, you can see that there is not anything really
happening. There is no animation to the streetscape what so ever. What we are hoping to
do, this is that little park area, which is of course larger than it is shown here, but the little
park area in the southeast corner. We hope to be able to get people to walk. These might
possibly be people taking the 22 bus,. they may have done some shopping somewhere and
are coming back. They may have been coming out of our building. The bus stop is going
to be a few feet in front of them. We hope to have either pedestrians, people from the
neighborhood or people who are taking the VTA come in and relax on a summer day and
enjoy themselves. Mini parks in the northwest and southeast corners, which we have
been talking about, trees and shrubbery enhancements throughout the site, again those are
the areas that we are talking about, these areas here.
Let’s talk about no significant impacts. Residents do not typically drive. It is rare to find
a Sunrise resident who drives. The existing zoning could generate much more traffic
than we are providing. For example, this is Sunrise with over 200 cars a day, which we
would put out from our project. A typical 35-unit condominium project would probably
do something over 200 cars. The current zoning today would allow for about 23
condominiums and a restaurant up on E1 Camino Real, which could conceivably be as
many as 1,200 cars. So you can see that the impact that Sunrise has versus the impact
that something like this has is negligible.
The mechanical equipment and refuse is going to be shielded from impacts. We have in
fact even taken the refuse and put it inside the building so it will not be outside, it will not
be unsightly or noisy. There will be no impact to schools or libraries. Our residents
don’t drive, they don’t impact traffic, schools, parks and playing fields and libraries. Our
average resident is going to be about 83 to 84 years of age. We are going to have a
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Transportation Demand Management program for our Sunrise employees allowing them
to take either VTA or Cal Train.
We are going to be able to improve the air and water quality with types of landscaping
and just the general ambiance. This is our landscape plan showing the various species of
plants that will ultimately be planted at the site. It is going to be a tremendous
enhancement from what is there now.
The property taxes will be increased from about their current $25,000 to probably
somewhere roughly around $200,000 and we will wind up paying probably somewhere
close to $300,000 in impact fees.
Now I want to get on to the most important thing and that is the tmique combination of
BMR and public benefits. We call it an extraordinary BMR program for 12 residents,
which will include food and services. The cost when you capitalize it over the life of the
project is about $32.0 million. We say that in California today you would be hard
pressed to find one market driven assisted living facility that would offer this to any of
their residents. The only time you will see that is if a city makes a substantial donation
toward the BMR program or if they are under some type of a government bonding type
program and they are forced to do that. This is absolutely a wonderful thing for the
residents here in Palo Alto. We will make it that residents of Palo Alto will have a
preferred for these residential slots.
Chairman Griffin last time you mentioned the fact that goods and services as well as at
that time we had 11 residents you thought 12 might be the number, we are at 12 and we
have included the food and services. By the way, just to tell you this took over 18 face-
to-face meetings the City of Palo Alto to arrive at this program. It was very well done.
Sunrise will provide the public transit amenity that we talked about including the
sunshade and the benches. Again, this is the area that is going to be down toward the
VTA bus stop. I had a conversation with somebody about this saying that one of the
reasons that a lot of people don’t take the bus is because it doesn’t even look rider-
friendly to be down here at this bus stop. With something like this it might bring people
out and ride the bus more than they are riding it today. The Trees for E1 Camino asked us
to pledge $5,000 we said we would like to pledge $20,000 because we would like to
upgrade E1 Camino Real in front of Sunrise. Going back to those pictures that you saw it
needs help and it needs lots of help and we want to do our share to upgrade that for the
benefit of all Palo Alto.
The meeting space for Palo Alto senior through the Avenidas Senior Center again it is
something that is very important. There is not a lot of meeting space for seniors today in
Palo Alto. Working with Lisa Hendrickson at Avenidas we are going to do this. Maybe
once or twice a month we will have meetings, which will allow seniors in other areas of
Palo Alto to come and interface with the seniors that are living at our place and also be
able to partake of seminars, etc., we are going to do this once or twice a month. So that
we keep the impact of traffic down we will use the van for Sunrise to transport people.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Back again to the mini parks at the southwest and northeast comers, again you have seen
these. This one up here which is going to service more of the Sheridan type neighbors.
There is going to be several benches here, people can come in read a book, have lunch,
enjoy themselves and enjoy the ambiance that has been created.
Finally the public art working with the Palo Alto Arts Council I have a public meeting
with the Palo Alto Arts Council I think it is on the 20th of May and we are discussing how
we are going to do this. There are a lot of great ideas. We want to do a project that is
going to be by seniors for seniors that they will really be able to get involved in the art
and have something that really is meaningful for them. We are really excited about that
prospect. What this program and doing all six of these things we think is a wonderful
public benefit and again keep in mind that this is a one of a kind that you see up here for
the BMR program.
Just to give you some idea, very quickly I am going through three photographs, this is our
neighbor across the street at 410 Sheridan, which is a four-story condominium building,
which is across from us. It is also across from Silverwood. This is the Silverwood
condominium, we are on Sheridan here, our property would be just over here. this would
be the view of the property from Page Mill and E1 Camino Real. This is the 410 Sheridan
building. Over here we see Silverwood condominiums. This is the VTA parking lot.
This is the bus stop and this is us, our property. So we are back to the beginning and I
got in in the amount of time. Thank you very much and I really appreciate it and we are
here to answer any of your questions.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Zemanek. Commissioners before we pose questions to the
applicant we have here a member from the ARB, Judith Wasserman. Are you interested
in giving us a little report from your Board? Judith, welcome.
Ms. Judith Wasserman, Vice-Chair, Architectural Review Board: Yes, thank you. Hello
Chair Griffin and Commissioners. We saw this project two or three times. The major
issues were compliance with the E1 Camino design guidelines both the current ones and
the proposed ones, compatibility with the neighborhood, materials and massing and we
did look at the public benefits not from their greatness of their benefit but from the design
issues of the little parkettes.
The main issue with the E1 Camino design guidelines was the massing along the street
and also the liveliness of the streetscape and what kinds of activities would be going on
not only between the building and the street but also behind the windows. One of the
things we didn’t want to see was windows with the shades drawn all the time. The
applicant managed to rearrange their ground floor plans so that the activity behind the
windows facing E1 Camino would be acceptable to be seen. We were not going to see the
back of the house and the garbage and the kitchen. We were going to see offices and
dining rooms and conference areas.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
The massing as you saw went through a number of iterations and came back to us pretty
welt articulated, stepped back from Silverwood in a couple of steps and also setback the
one of the consequences of putting the fire lane down there was that it is really separated
from the adjacent condominium and the use of the parkette. It helped to do that.
The materials changed a number of times and there was not universal agreement on
whether we all liked the materials equally well. Some of us like it better than others but
we did agree that there was a logic to the use of the materials and the way they kind of
were assembled on the building. I think the thing that we had the most problem with was
the sign but it came out sort of okay. We thought that the parks were well designed and
had reasonable amenities and we thought that people might actually be inclined to use
them. We are going to have to see how it plays out and whether they really feel like
public places or whether they feel like semi-private places that sort of belong to the
building. I think the way it is actually installed will have a lot to do with that. If you
have any questions I will be happy to answer them. I am delighted that this project is
coming up so fast in the evening.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Vice-Chair Wasserman. You had
mentioned the discussion of the E1 Camino Real design guidelines. Right now the
guidelines call for a 35-foot height limit along E1 Camino Real. What was the Board’s
discussion with regard to going beyond that?
Ms. Wasserman: I don’t think that was a big issue. I think we were much more
concerned with the street level issues. I don’t remember discussing the height limit as a
particular problem. One of the things that are in the proposed guidelines is a larger
sidewalk. They did hold the building back to allow for that larger sidewalk setback. We
didn’t discuss the height limit that I can remember.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me ask the Staff that. Did Staff have any comments with
regard to that?
Ms. Grote: Actually I think the policy you may be referring to is in the Comprehensive
Plan, which calls for a variety of numbers of stories along South E1 Camino ranging from
one to three. It doesn’t prevent taller buildings. Ih the guidelines in fact there are several
references to increased height along E1 Camino to better address and relate to the wide
dimensions of the street. So the E1 Camino design guidelines would support this height
and with a PC (Planned Community) Zone there is the ability to vary the height and
increase it.
Ms. Wasserman: Actually Lee, when we discussed in the guidelines committee the
heights along E1 Camino according to some rule of thumb for creating outdoor rooms the
height on E1 Camino should be 60 feet. Since nobody was ever going to get near 60 feet
we thought that the citywide height limit was sufficient.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: There are further questions. Let’s go with Karen and then we will move
on down the line.
Commissioner Holman: I had a question similar to Lee’s, which is what is the sidewalk
depth on the E1 Camino side? I had the same feeling about feeling pushed off of the
sidewalk with that much shear undifferentiated roof mass right at E1 Camino. Do you
know what the sidewalk dimension is there?
Mr. Reich: The depth is proposed at 12 feet.
Ms. Wasserman: There are also these little courtyards between the building and the
sidewalk. The building is sort of divided into two sections along E1 Camino. On the
section near Sheridan there is a dining court that is related to the dining room. In the
other section I think it is just kind of a landscaped area but it is related to the kitchen
offices.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then two other questions. One is the low walls that are
indicated on the E1 Camino side with the seating beyond those, did the ARB have
concerns about those being viewed as private spaces since they are kind ofbarriered off?.
Ms. Wasserman: Those are private spacesl Along E1 Camino there are two things going
on. There is the public parkette in the corner of the site and then there are these two kind
of gated areas. They belong to Sunrise. Those are private spaces but they are outdoor
private spaces in the sense that you would have like a restaurant that would have a
courtyard where you could eat outside. In this case it is Sunrise that eats outside there. It
is not the same as the park which is actually open and not fenced off. If they put a fence
around the park they have defeated their purpose.
Commissioner Holman: I misunderstood then. I thought the applicant had said that he
hoped that people would utilize that seating along there.
Ms. Wasserman: In my understanding he was talking about two different things.
Mr. Reich: The seating proposed is actually in parkette as opposed to the other seating in
the fenced off area. There are two different areas.
Ms. Wasserrnan: The section he showed you was actually not through the park, I am
sorry to correct you, but it was through the dining seating area. The park actually is
deeper than that.
Commissioner Holman: The other question is the fire lane. When this came to the
Commission earlier, I can appreciate absolutely and do appreciate a lot of the efforts that
the ARB made especially in getting some massing away fi:om the back of the property
where there are other buildings, when this came to the Commission before in regard to
the fire lane we had talked about keeping it on E1 Camino because of the VTA site next to
it because you want as few curb cuts as you can. When the VTA site gets developed you
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
want to be able to have a shared or common fire lane was how our discussion went at the
last Planning Commission meeting. So did that get brought up or referenced at the ARB
meeting?
Ms. Wasserman: No the desire was something, I am having a hard time remembering.
There was some reason that - I am sorry I have lost it but that was not the issue.
Chair Griffin: Maybe Staffcould help you with that.
Mr. Reich: It was discussed at the ARB. The ARB didn’t have an issue with it but it was
explained to them that the applicant would like to preserve the parkette feature on E1
Camino and by putting the fire lane in that location if the VTA was to access in that
location in the future it would eliminate that park and transit amenity in that location. It
would eliminate the ability for a significant amount of landscaping and with the
modification of the underground parking garage if you look at the site plan you can see
that it goes below this garden area between Silverwood and Sunrise. That also is an area
that you can’t do significant landscaping because of the parking garage below. It seemed
logical to have the fire lane in this location because you can’t significantly landscape it
where you can the other areas. So you would have had two areas without significant
landscaping rather than just the one. If the applicant wants to go into further detail as to
why they chose to move it he can answer that for you.
Chair Griffin: Karen are you finished? Bonnie, please.
Commissioner Packer: These are kind of follow up questions. When I look at the
drawings and I look at the landscape concept and I look at one of the black and white
drawings it is hard for me to see two things, one the fire lane going over a landscaped are
and where the loading would actually happen in that landscaped amenity area on E1
Camino. Can somebody help me with that? I see these little pink paths going through
the green and I don’t see any room for trucks and I don’t see any room for fire trucks.
Mr. Reich: Yes. On the Sheridan side where the fire lane is that will be a grass-crete
material so it will appear as if it is a lawn but fire trucks will be able to access on that side
between the Silverwood building and the Sunrise building. On the E1 Camino side in
terms of a loading zone the loading zone is on E1 Camino itself. There is actually an
extra lane there and trucks would park on E1 Camino in a red zone and with hand-trucks
they would wheel material into the back of the building through these pathways that you
see on the site plan.
Commissioner Packer: So they would park in front of the bus?
Mr. Reich: They would park forward of the bus stop, yes.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Griffin: I am thinking Judith perhaps we are finished for the moment asking you
questions. You might stay close in case Commissioner Burt has a question.
Commissioner Butt: Judith, you mentioned that there was some difference of opinion on
selection of materials among ARB members. Were you referring to the overall difference
in style between the Craftsman style and the modem style or a more subtle difference?
Ms. Wasserrnan: No I think as I remember one of the Board Members had a problem
with the number of different materials and their consistency with the design intention,
which was stated to be contemporary. Nobody had a problem with the contemporary
aspect of it but whether the number and nature of the materials selected actually
supported that or not. As I said the Board was divided on that but it did pass ultimately.
Commissioner Butt: Was it the ARB’s recommendation that the developer move away
from the Craftsman oriented style toward a more modem or how did that happen?
Ms. Wasserman: Yes, you are blessed with a modernist Board at the moment and the
tendency is for us to encourage applicants to live in the 21 st century and not in the 19th.
So that is sort of the nudging that we gave them and this is what they came back with
which was a more contemporary version of still a building with pitched roofs and
overhangs and articulation and whatnot. It doesn’t look like a steel and glass column but
it is a more up to date aesthetic.
Chair Griffin: I think you are off the hook.
Ms. Wasserman: You might lobby the Council if you don’t like the appointments.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Judith. Commissioners do you have other questions here that
you would wish to raise with either Staff or the applicant at this time? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was wondering about the parking spaces in the garage. On the
plans it showed one handicapped spot and a handicap area for the van. Is this consistent
with our guidelines for handicapped or would it make more sense to have a few more
handicap spaces considering the population of this project? ! don’t know who can answer
this.
Ms. Grote: We are double-checking the handicap standard. We believe it is one
handicap space for every 50 parking spaces but we will double-check that. The Building
Division did review the plans and is satisfied that the handicap-parking requirement has
been met. We will double-check it right now.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, given that that’s a handicap parking for buildings that
would not have a senior population. So I was wondering if a on a practical basis it
wouldn’t make more sense to have additional handicap parking beyond our requirements.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ms. Grote: There wouldn’t be a code based reason for requiring more however you may
want to discuss it with the applicant if they are willing to consider that. There wouldn’t
be anything to prevent it if they are willing to consider that.
Mr. Reich: I think the applicant can also speak to the functionality of the facility and the
need for additional handicap parking spaces being that the residents don’t drive. They
wouldn’t be the ones needing additional handicap spaces. Generally if they can pull into
the parking garage and drop someone off or get out of the vehicle you wouldn’t need a
large number of handicap spaces to accommodate people actually pulling into stalls and
achieving that.
Commissioner Packer: Well, just my own personal experience. Families often come and
take their relatives home and will need a handicap accessible way to accommodate this.
So there just may be greater needs to have that capacity because you may have several of
these on a weekend let’s say, people coming and needing that capability to bring a
relative to their home for the weekend or whatever is required. That is why I thought of
that.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Chair Griffin: Well while you are considering all of this unless Mr. Zemanek you would
20 like to respond?
21
22 Mr. Zemanek: I just wanted to draw to your attention Commissioner Packer that there
23 are two handicap parking spaces in here.
24
25 Commissioner Packer: One for the van and one for regular cars.
26
27 Mr. Zemanek: But the van wouldn’t be parked in there. The van has another parking
28 space, which you can see over to the right on the parking plan.
29
30 Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
31
32 Ms. Grote: Also to further clarify that is the requirement for a parking area that has
33 between 26 and 50 parking stalls you need two accessible spaces, one of which needs to
34 be a van space.
35
36 Chair Griffin: Bonnie, are you finished?
37
38 Commissioner Packer: I’ll have other questions but I will let other Commissioners go.
39
40 Chair Griffin: I am thinking unless there are urgent questions that colleagues wish to
41 raise at this time I would be interested in hearing from members of the public. If any of
42 you would like to sign up to speak with us we would be interested in your comments. I
43 have four cards and you will have five minutes each at this stage. Bob Cutler would be
44 our first speaker and following Bob will be Angelica Volterra and Chuck Marsh.
45 Welcome, Bob.
46
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Bob Cutler, 435 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have spoken before
in support of the proposed assisted living facility. Most of my earlier concerns with
respect to details of the layout of the building appear to have been addressed by the
current building design. I appreciate the efforts of the City and the developer to arrive at
this stage.
The construction is estimated to take one and a half years. Referring to the StaffReport
Exhibit B, Draft Conditions of Approval, item 23, mention is made of the need of a
construction logistics plan. Because of the current daytime parking situation on Sheridan
I would encourage a well-thought out offsite-parking plan with workers to be transported
to the site. I am sure this is in the best interest not only of the current residents and work
force of the area but the construction personnel as well. A method of providing feedback
on how well the system is working would also be desirable. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Cutler. Angelica Volterra followed by Chuck Marsh.
Welcome, Angie.
Ms. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I spent
considerable time reviewing this project including three versions of the Fehr & Peers
Traffic Impact Analysis, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and memoranda related to
traffic issues. I have attended and spoken at meetings and written letters and submitted
photographs documenting traffic impacts and issues. The proposed project would create
significant traffic impacts on Sheridan that have not been adequately addressed in the
project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and the April 14 StaffReport. Sheridan is a
narrow local street with parked cars along both sides of the project site. The project
would add traffic to Sheridan Avenue that exceeds the City ofPalo Alto’s 25% traffic
impact threshold of significance criterion. The Sunrise traffic analysis and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration erroneously claim that the project would only result in a 22%
increase on Sheridan. However, the traffic analysis arrives at this figure by incorrectly
applying a full eight percent trip reduction factor for the TDM measure that is included as
part of the project. This eight percent includes a three percent trip reduction factor for an
employment location within a 2,000-foot walk of Cal Train. This projdct is not within
2,000 feet so that three percent should not be applied. Also I have questions about
whether or not it is correct to actually apply the full five percent. I could go into those
but I won’t.
The traffic analysis also arrives at this erroneous 22% figure through trip routing data,
which are inaccurate. The inaccuracy of this data was corroborated by responses to a
questionnaire submitted to residents of the adjacent Silverwood complex. Of 80
responses received, so there were ten respondents times eight possible trip routes and
answers, only two answers corresponded to answers or routes provided in the traffic
analysis. There were eight routes that basically, eight of the 16 routes they mentioned, I
did not feel and this was corroborated through a questionnaire reflected the true routes
that would be taken. The most egregious example is that the analysis claimed that all
inbound traffic traveling north on Highway 101 to the Sunrise site would exit 101 at San
Antonio, tum right at Charleston, turn right onto E1 Camino, turn right onto Sheridan and
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
turn right into the project. Incredibly this route was selected rather than the logical route
that would have traffic traveling north on 101 and exiting at Oregon Expressway. When
correct trip routes are used the increase in traffic on Sheridan exceeds the 25%
significance threshold. The trip generation rates used in the traffic analysis are based on
inaccurate data sources that underestimate traffic activity and a vague contingency factor
that is not described and therefore cannot be assessed.
The analysis states, "The traffic counts combined with sign-in sheets represented the
major source of the data." This is from Appendix D, page two of the traffic analysis.
During a visit that I made to one facility only one in four people I saw entering the
building signed those logs. Also allowing seniors from all over Palo Alto to use the
Sunrise facility and they say twice a month in the Staff Report, not once or twice a
month, for meetings, conferences and workshops would exacerbate traffic congestion and
parking on Sheridan and these impacts haven’t been studied.
Very importantly I believe Staff has failed to take into account the cumulative traffic
impacts of this project when considered together with at least three other furore
development projects that will also impact Sheridan. Three projects are described in the
Housing Sites Inventory list of the Housing Element. One of these sites is slated for a
minimum of 120 units. Future residents of these units would use Sheridan and thus
create additional traffic impacts. CEQA requires an adequate cumulative impacts
analysis and I could read you guideline 15130 including 151301B but that calls taking
into account Comprehensive Plan or Plan projects. Also AB2292.
Parking issues. Contrary to the StaffReport’s claim the proposed project would
eliminate parking spaces on Sheridan by adding actively used curb cuts. I was very, very
frustrated to read in the current Staff Report that, "the project achieves more on-street
parking due to the removal of one curb cut." I have documented the fallacy of this
statement repeatedly, at least four times in letters and photographs. Many visitors to the
facility and probably staff members as well would regularly use on-street parking along
Sheridan which is a heavily parked, I have documented that in photographs all during the
day, weekdays, I have documented that it can be fully parked because it supports the
business district on California Avenue. On Sunday mornings there is a church there and
it is very heavily parked as well. Also the methodology used by the traffic analysis to
determine and calculate parking demands is unclear and it is impossible to adequately
evaluate it. It relies also on the sign-in sheets.
There would also be delivery and construction impacts. With regard to deliveries there
will be numerous smaller delivery trucks and vehicles using Sheridan Avenue for
deliveries to supply well over 100 residents visitors and staff with daily food and supplies
and mail. It is not credible to imagine that the Sunrise facility would refuse deliveries or
even notice if deliveries were made from double-parked vehicles as stated in the
condition. I think there will be substantial impacts on traffic circulation, parking and
safety in the project area due to construction impacts.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
If you wanted me to read the CEQA guideline I would but I believe that my interpretation
of that this project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration should take into consideration
these future projects. They are in the Housing Sites Inventory list. Thank you very much
I appreciate your time.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Angle. Chuck Marsh and following Chuck will be Joy
Ogawa. Chuck, welcome.
Mr. Chuck Marsh. 2557 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto: Thank you. Thank you for being
here tonight. I live in the Park Central Condos near this site. I think the applicant has
clearly listened to the City and made significant changes. I totally agree there is an
increasing need for this type of facility as we have more and more fi:ail seniors who
would like to live close to their loved ones in Palo Alto. I have also clearly listened to
these traffic concerns that were just expressed and I expect that before you sum years ago
when the developer for the Sheridan or the Silverwood condos came here single-family
home neighbors came and objected for traffic reasons as well. They were probably the
same reasons. I think the time to contemplate what the traffic impacts are is when the
property is originally zoned. When the property was zoned CN and RM-40 that would
have been a good time to bring up the traffic issues of such a dense use. But what could
go on this property that would generate less traffic than a facility for seniors averaging in
their 80’s, people without cars, a few employees and unfortunately probably not very
many visitors? So I can’t imagine anything that would generate less traffic on this site
than what is before you tonight and I would urge you to approve it. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Chuck. Joy Ogawa is our last speaker. If there are any of the
others in the audience that would like to participate now is the time. Welcome, Joy.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I spoke at the November 12
Planning Commission meeting and the February 5 ARB meeting on this item. So I will
refer to those comments and I stand by all those previous comments.
At the ARB I asked the question who is Morris Page Mill, LLC. Morris Page Mill, LLC
is the owner of the property and so I would like to know who are the individuals who
hold the financial interest in Morris Page Mill, LLC. I have not received an answer to the
question and I think it is important to make this disclosure to identify potential conflicts
of interests at the ARB level, at the Planning Commission level and at the City Council
level.
With regard to traffic I think Angelica Volterra has already made a great presentation and
I probably don’t need to go over any of that. I did hear when Staff gave its presentation I
heard Staff state that a senior assisted living facility does not generate as much traffic as a
conventional residential facility. I really don’t agree with that. I beg to differ. Senior
residents may not drive themselves but their relatives and other visitors will drive. Also
this facility will have employees and many, many more employees than a conventional
residential facility would generate. This facility will not house any of these employees.
This facility will also attract a lot more delivery vehicle trips than a conventional
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
residential facility and if it is going to serve as meeting rooms it is going to attract even
more. The previous speaker said that the time to address the traffic impacts was when the
original zoning is put in place, well you are doing original zoning now because it is
Planned Community. You are changing the zoning and this is absolutely the time to
consider traffic impacts when you are changing the zoning from the existing zoning.
Loss of Neighborhood Commercial. Part of this property, the portion of this property that
fronts E1 Camino is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial and it is designated
Neighborhood Commercial in the Comp Plan. To quote the Comp Plan, "Neighborhood
Commercial includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street front
stores that serve the immediate neighborhood." The previous use of this property was a
retail nursery that did serve the immediate neighborhood. The proposed project does not
include any facility of stores, commercial, that serves the immediate neighborhood.
The BMR program. I have concerns about that because I looked at, I haven’t had time to
carefully look over all of the Staff Report but I did notice that there is going to be
exclusion of dementia care from the BMR program at Sunrise, exclusion of the dementia
care. It seems to me that this project has been touted as being especially special because
of the dementia care that it offers. Most facilities don’t offer that. However, this
dementia care is being excluded from the BMR program. So I guess the low income
BMR residents just better not develop dementia because they are not going to be able to
afford to stay at this facility to receive the dementia care. Those are all the comments
that I have come up with for tonight but I do refer to my previous comments at previous
meetings. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy. We have no further speaker cards so I am going to bring
the item back to the desk for colleagues to ask further questions and eventually
comments. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Mr. Zemanek. The $32 million on the
overall lifetime cost of the BMR benefits here, how was that number arrived at? Does
that include a cost of living adjustment or any other?
Mr. Zemanek: What it is is the difference in what a BMR resident would be paying
versus what a market rate resident would be paying capitalized over the life of the project
at four percent.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. With regard to Joy Ogawa’s comment with regard to the
BMR residents being excluded from the dementia program is there anyone else that
would be picking that up like Medicare or any other insurance program or social
services?
Mr. Zemanek: People with financial needs that need that type of skilled care have other
alternatives of getting that care other than being in a Sunrise home. Whereas people who
are in the assisted living portion of the building do not have that ability because of the
level of care that is given. So it does make a difference.
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Phyllis? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just had some questions on the BMR program since that is the
subject. Is there someone here from Staff who -is prepared to answer my questions?
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Yes.
Commissioner Packer: Okay. I was trying to figure out Tables 6 and 7 of the agreement
and a couple ofthings struck me. I notice in one of the columns the subsidy for the
higher low income was greater than the subsidy for the lower low income. Little things
like that that were confusing to me on Table 6 in the agreement. Basically my overall
concern about the BMR program, which is a reduction of the total monthly fee, and the
total monthly fee I understand is an unbundled amount that includes the rent and all the
other services. That is correct? So there is a percent applied depending on where
somebody falls in the income range. Given that it also includes the food and services,
which are pretty expensive. Is it realistic that there will be people in the very low income
that would have the income to pay these monthly rates in the first place because this is
more than just rent? Has anyone given that thought? The concept is a great concept but
would we end up with empty BMR units for those four or eight units?
Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: What we determined was that I believe
it is 70% of the low income based on the average median income rates would go for the
very low to the program. So there would be about 30% of their income that would be
leftover. We wanted to ensure that there would be sufficient money for other items for
instance clothing, medicine and that sort of thing. So we felt that looking at the average
median income in Santa Clara County that is relatively high and that is similar to the way
we address BMR units for the average person. We had difficulty with this project
because this is definitely a different beast than what we have dealt with previously.
Kathy Segal who unfortunately isn’t here tonight worked very closely with Sunrise to
develop this and felt comfortable particularly with the fact that these additional funds
would be available for the residents. They weren’t committing all of their income to the
program.
Commissioner Packer: Okay. I thought the agreement was a wonderful very thorough
agreement. I was just concerned about the reality of whether there is a market for this in
that category of that income. Would they really have the cash even for the basic fee?
Mr. Emslie: Basically what this does is it uses the countywide median that we use for
determining affordability as the Commission is well aware. What it does is allocate a
portion of that income at the very low rate for example to pay for both rent and services
and there is a remaining residual because we didn’t want 100% obviously of the person’s
income going towards their room and services. So it does allow for retention of income
for incidental expenses, medications and so forth. So we feel very confident that we will
have individuals in this category and we will provide a cushion if you will so that not
100% of that income will be devoted to monthly charges.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Packer: Thanks. That clarifies things for me.
Chair Griffin: I have a couple of people here. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up question on that. So as I understand it what is key
is that that’s a maximum monthly charge and not a prescribed charge.
Mr. Emslie: That is absolutely correct. That is as high as it can go and you can see the
percentages allow for greater retention at the lower levels because medicine is going to
cost the same for a low income person as it would for others. We tried to equalize it so
there was roughly the same amount of residual income retained by the occupant of the
BMR unit.
Commissioner Butt: I was struggling with that same concept that Commissioner Packer
was struggling with and that is I think that 85 year olds do not have an average income
for Santa Clara County residents. Just if you would help clarify, given that that’s a
maximum is it basically guaranteed that these 12 units will be utilized by BMR residents
that if the cost would drop down to the level that would assure that there are more than
enough qualified residents to utilize these units.
Mr. Emslie: That is correct. The applicant is committing to these residents so it would
have to be lowered until adequate numbers of BMR renters would be admitted to the
facility.
Commissioner Burt: Great, thanks.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, follow up to that. Pat made one of the points that I was
going to bring forward too that 85 year olds don’t have typical Bay Area income. So that
is one concern. Also help me to understand if I have overlooked something but is this a
four, four and four? There are three different strata here about very low, lower low and
higher low. Is there anything that I have overlooked that requires Sunrise to have four
very low, four lower low? In other words to keep them on the lower end of this so we
don’t end up with 12 higher low income BMRs?
Ms. Caporgno: They are committed to this proportion. So there has to be the amount
that we have identified as very low, lower low and higher low. They all can’t be higher
low.
Commissioner Holman: I did not see that in the ordinance though.
Commissioner Packer: The agreement runs with the land and it is recorded and it will
run with the land for 59 years or something like that. So the ordinance refers to the
agreement.
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I overlooked that. Also, why was the dementia care
eliminated from this? It seems also like perhaps something that should be discussed at
least is that whatever portion of the building is committed to dementia care that that same
percentage should be committed to dementia care in the BMR units.
Ms. Caporgno: That was something that we initially discussed with Sunrise. In our
negotiations it was decided not to include that. At this time we didn’t really know how to
structure it. We have hired a consultant to do a BMR program update. One of the things
we are going to have them look at is this concept not for this project but for future
projects. We just didn’t really know how to include that so it was one of the negotiating
points. Sunrise added an additional unit, I don’t know if you noticed that there were 11
units originally discussed or offered, and they included a 12th bed. So in some of the
negotiations that is why we excluded it. I don’t know Steve if you want to add to that.
Mr. Emslie: Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say we couldn’t figure it out. We were trying
to stay within the confines of the BMR program, which as you know is a rental or
purchase subsidy program. Essentially the City requires units to be included in every unit
that is required. We felt that the dementia wing was really crossing over into a more
clinical setting, which made it more difficult to apply the BMR criteria. So it wasn’t
necessarily something that we couldn’t figure out. Certainly given the parameters we felt
it was a fair exchange to add a unit. Quite frankly we found it very compelling that we
were able to get services included and we think that is a major step in guaranteeing
essentially that future residents will have care essentially for the rest of their lives in this
facility. So we do feel that is a very compelling component of this.
I think we also recognize that this is a growing housing need. I don’t think this will be
the last of this project. Clearly the demographics that were mentioned prior do speak to a
growing need so I think what Julie was mentioning in terms of investigating this as a tool
and perhaps making some change to the BMR program and the ordinance as it is
currently being drafted. So we are looking at that prospectively as future projects come
down the road.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: A follow up question on that. I certainly do appreciate that the
service care is something that would not normally go along with BMRs and it is an
additional component. I appreciate very much the public benefit that is associated with
that. I also appreciate Staff’s comments that wading into the more clinical aspect of the
dementia care adds complexity to the calculation. What I wanted to ask is if prior to the
Council meeting might Staff and the applicant be able to look at offering two scenarios to
Council given that presumably the dementia care is more expensive for Sunrise than the
other services. Council might like to see some combination of the non-dementia care and
one or two units of dementia care presuming that it would reduce the number of BMR
units as a tradeoff. I don’t know what Council’s preference would be I don’t even know
what mine would be but I think that it would be an interesting alternative if the net
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
financial impact to Sunrise were essentially unchanged and if that alternative could be
presented it might be something Council would want to consider.
Mr. Emslie: From our side of the table we certainly would entertain that. We might want
to hear from the applicant on their feelings about such a discussion.
Chair Griffin: Mr. Zemanek do you have a seat-of-the-pants response?
Mr. Zemanek: Thank you. Again, we had many, many face-to-face meetings on this.
First of all when you roll the clock back and I will just take you back to maybe the first
meeting we had or the second or third meeting we had. Understanding that in the State of
California you are not supposed to rent control any assisted living home at all. The HUD
guidelines do not take into consideration dementia even when HUD insists on their BMR
program. Dementia is a very specialized service and it is very costly. As I told you
before people who have financial disadvantages and they have severe dementia have
other alternatives with which they can take care of themselves financially through
programs. You don’t have that at the assisted living level. So we gave up ever arguing
the point that you can’t rent control assisted living, which you can’t. We age that up and
we said okay, we are going to concentrate on the assisted living portion of the building,
which is the majority of our residents. It would be a hardship and would be very difficult
to go and put a BMR component into the dementia area. Needless to say, after all you
folks you set the tone here, if you are giving me a demand to go and discuss that with
Staff obviously we are forced to do that but I am telling you right now that we have given
a terrific program here. We are talking about out of 70 residents that would be in the
assisted living portion of the building 12 of these residents are going to be able to get
BMR care. If you are talking about the dementia portion of the building which again
even under HUD programs HUD doesn’t insist on dementia being covered under a BMR
program because it is a completely special, very intense area of the building. So we
would ask you please don’t at this point ask us to do that. We would rather have you
consider the merits of this for the assisted living people and the fact that we are providing
it to 12 residents.
Commissioner Burt: Mr. Zemanek, I am very comfortable with the merits of the assisted
living proposal that you have set forth. I was not suggesting a proposal that would have
greater financial burden on Sunrise than what you have already offered. So that was not
the intention of the question. My question, which I think you have probably given an
adequate answer, was if there were an alternative to fewer BMR units and one or two of
those instead being in the dementia care that would have no net difference to Sunrise then
in that case I thought that would be of interest to the Council. If it is really problematic to
delve into the dementia care as part of the BMR area then I am not persistent on pursuing
that. But if there was no net impact financially to you then I thought that that might be a
proposal that the Council would be interested in.
Mr. Zemanek: I understand. Thank you for that explanation.
Chair Griffin: Lee, did you have a question?
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I have a follow up question for Mr. Zemanek, actually I am
changing the subject. With regard to the transportation program you indicated that you
would have a dedicated van or vehicle for the facility. Is it your plan to have a full time
driver that would be associated with that?
Mr. Zemanek: We have a driver that is in with the van. He may not necessarily be there
all eight hours of the day but he is there when it is necessary, yes.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay and how would that work with staff coming and going?
Would there be a tie-in to make the van operate with the train schedule so that there
would be a van that would go to the Cal Train station which is a couple of thousand feet
away?
Mr. Zemanek: I did the walk myself from the Cal Train station to our building. It is a
very easy walk and I am not so sure that it would be necessary to pick people up there.
Obviously if somebody needed some transportation we would try to make that available
but I am not so sure that that would be necessary. I think the majority of our people
Commissioner Lippert would probably come on the VTA rather than the train. That is
probably where the majority of our workforce would be.
Commissioner Lippert: With regard to visitors to the facility as well would there be any
connection made with say people coming from either San Jose or San Francisco by train
and then being picked up there and being brought to the facility?
Mr. Zemanek: We have never done that due to the fact that first of all it would have to be
something that would have to be prearranged and organized. I think a lot of people tend
to be a little more serendipitous about their visitations quite frankly but we have never
really considered it. Again, with the train station being relatively close and the VTA bus
stop being right outside the building it seems to be a fairly easy walk. I don’t know.
Commissioner Lippert: What I am alluding to or what I am thinking of is I live around
the comer from Lytton Gardens and Webster House and they have their own vehicle,
their own van, which operates. I believe one of them is an assisted living center right
now. They do have their own vehicle that does transport not only staff but as well some
of the residents and visitors to that facility.
Mr. Zemanek: Yes. We certainly have a van that moves the residents around obviously,
that is what we do. In the case of the meetings that we are talking about having with the
Avenidas people we would definitely want the van involved with those as well to keep
the traffic on the street down. But we have never had a program where we have really
picked up visitors to the facility. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I am going to ask a few questions of my own ifI may and I am taking note
of the fact that most of the comments from the public had to do with transportation and
parking related issues. So I am wondering if the applicant would be able to talk about
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
how many of those 44 parking spaces would be dedicated for vehicles owned by tenants
of the home?
Mr. Zemanek: Chairman Griffin the chances of somebody owning a car will be nil. It is
just very nil. Some of our homes might have two or three people that might have a car in
there. Most of the homes you won’t find a car. I think we did a study one time where we
took all of the homes we had including homes that were independent living homes and I
think it came out that the maximum was something like four percent and that included
independent living. Those were people that got around. Our people are assisted living
people. They are probably there because of a family intervention. Dad has either had a
fender bender in the parking lot, mom’s left the gas on on the stove. They are just not
driving vehicles. So to even have spaces even dedicated to them obviously if they had a
car they would be able to park down there but that is just not probably going to be part of
the program.
Chair Griffin: I have another question relating to delivery trucks using the Sheridan drive
and entryway. I am trying to differentiate between what those deliveries would be for
example compared to the ones on the E1 Camino where you have the 60-foot delivery
zone. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but I am presuming that people like UPS
and maybe the mailman would use the front entrance. Is it reasonable to expect that you
would be able to have box van deliveries made on the E1 Camino site?
Mr. Zemanek: The purveyors that we use we can give them instruction where to go. If
the mail guy comes he is going to go just like he would to Silverwood or like he would to
410 Sheridan. He is going to park out in the street, run the mail up and give it. If there
was an apartment building there instead of a Sunrise or condominiums that is what he is
going to do anyway. So the majority of our deliveries, I mean all of our deliveries that
we have control over we can give definite instructions for the person to park. Like for
example we had a situation where Ms. Volterra was at our Belmont property and I was
there too I was taking some people around in fact Chairman Griffin you were there at the
same time. I am standing out on driveway and here a UPS truck is unloading and
delivering. We have a special spot for them I don’t know why I didn’t even think to tell
the guy you have to get out of here and park over there but it is a matter of management
to make that happen. Obviously there are going to be some slip-ups from time to time
but there are going to be delivery trucks that are going to go to Silverwood and they are
going to go to 410 Sheridan. That is always going to be the case. Our people don’t get
any more deliveries than a typical person gets from the standpoint of mail and FedEx.
How many people in an assisted living home get a lot of FedEx packages? So yes, the
big trucks will be on E1 Camino Real and the trucks that we control will be on E1 Camino
Real but the guys like the mail guy he is probably going to stop in front of the building
and drop the mail off.
Chair Griffin: I just wanted your take on whether or not you would feel comfortable
telling people, when I say people I am talking about those other than UPS and the
mailman, to deliver out on E1 Camino. It sounds like that is your intention.
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Zemanek: Chairman, considering that we are their customer, yes we would
definitely do that.
Chair Griffin: Just to follow up on my colleague, Commissioner Lippert’s, remark ~out
the use of the shuttle van. I realize that you don’t have a lot of employees at this site but
is there any consideration to providing a shuttle service at the end of the evening shift for
example after nightfall if that would make it easier for employees to get down to the train
station? Again, it is not a long walk but it is after dark and I am wondering if you would
be willing to consider that as a possibility?
Mr. Zemanek: What typically happens in our homes is that whether the van is used or
not if there is an employee that has a problem and has to get home somebody who misses
carpool date or the carpool person is sick that day our own staff makes sure that people
get home. Our staff is a very heartfelt group. They wouldn’t abandon people.
Chair Griffin: I have a question for Staff having to do with parking on the street side. If
it were judged to be necessary based on the parking that takes place in the neighborhood
after this facility is installed would be consideration given to having a two-hour parking
zone for the curbside parking in the blocks immediately adjacent to the site?
Ms. Grote: Yes we can consider that. We would suggest a monitoring program so we
can evaluate how the parking situation is operating on the street. Then, yes, we can
consider two-hour parking zones.
Chair Griffin: How would that be incorporated into the list of terms and conditions for
approval of the project?
Ms. Grote: You can in your proposal for approval recommend adding a condition, which
would include a monitoring program for on-street parking on Sheridan and a reporting of
that within the first six months and make that a condition of approval.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one last question for Mr. Zemanek. A couple of weeks
ago we heard an item come forward here when I was not on this Board regarding noise
being generated in that area. One solution would be to increase the STC rating of
windows. What is the STC rating of your windows and what is your noise mitigation
plan to keep it so that residents aren’t bothered by outside noises along E1 Camino Real?
Mr. Zemanek: This is our architect Jerry McDevitt.
Commissioner Lippert: Just so you know, STC is Sound Transmission Coefficient.
Mr. Jerry_ McDevitt, Architect: Good evening. I wasn’t expecting that question so I
don’t have a number for STC characteristics of the windows but they will be all double-
glazed. Just so you know the equipment that is on the roof is moved at least to the center
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
of the building or to the E1 Camino side and it is behind the parapet and it is well within
the guidelines set by the City for noise at the property line.
Commissioner Lippert:
Mr. McDevitt: Yes.
Commissioner Lippert:
Are the windows operable?
Okay but the building is conditioned?
Mr. McDevitt: It is fully conditioned.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I want to go back to the fire lane. I just went back and looked at
the minutes again about combined access on busy streets such as E1 Camino. Indulge me
here and explain to me again why you think it is not necessary to do that given the VTA
site is probably going to develop and how at a previous meeting we talked about how it
would be important to have that be a shared access.
Mr. Reich: In conversations with the Transportation Division they had talked about the
fact that it is always desirable to have access combined or on a less busy street. Coming
off of E1 Camino where you have faster travel speeds it would be better to not have
access from there and have it from some other location but being that the location of the
fire lane driveway and the location of the existing driveway aren’t dramatically different
and there really isn’t an issue with access to the VTA site now the benefit of being able to
preserve that area as a landscape amenity outweighed any potential benefit of moving the
driveway. At one time it would have been a benefit because there would have been a
combined driveway access, fire as well as VTA but being that the fire lane was moved
there would be no reason to have VTA accessingthat location.
Commissioner Holman: Then also I thought that Ms. Volterra made a couple of good
points. The graphics that she presented were pretty convincing. I have visited that site a
few times too about the parking. It is true that cars park across the curb cuts now because
they are not utilized curb cuts. So I would like Staff to respond to that. Then also I was
surprised to see the travel routes that people would take. Some people might but the
Sheridan apartments doesn’t prove out that most people would take or that all northbound
traffic would take Charleston. So could Staffrespond to those please?
Mr. Reich: In terms of the parking issue and the number of curb cuts it is not reasonable
to expect that a property owner not have curb cuts on a street just because cars are
currently parking across the existing curb cuts. There are four there now there will be a
reduction in the number of curb cuts. Even though people are parking in front of the curb
cuts it doesn’t justify not allowing the property owner to have a curb cut to access their
property off of that location.
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
In terms of the trip distribution issues there are a lot of, and Transportation might be able
to speak better to this but, the TIA uses and the people that prepared it are professionals
and they use a specific methodology to determine how people may travel. Until the
project is up and nmning and employees are hired and people move into the site we don’t
know exactly where those visitors are going to live or where those employees are going
to live and specifically what the percentages are going to be coming from different
directions. So there is a lot of educated assumptions made. One of the things I noticed
from looking at the study or the survey that was provided by Ms. Volterra is that if you
are looking at the traffic impact on Sheridan and you look at the responses provided by
the Silverwood residents and the assumptions made by the Transportation Impact
Analysis in terms of the impact on Sheridan when someone says ’yes we would turn right
if we are going to go this way’ or ’we would turn left if we were going to go that way’
the responses provided by the Silverwood residents actually validate the information
provided by the TIA because they are nearly identical. In terms of where people go
beyond Sheridan there were different assumptions made by the TIA that were different
from the findings of the survey. So I don’t know how else to explain it but the TIA has
been prepared by professionals and they have their opinions and their opinions are being
questioned by other people. If Transportation wants to add to that they can speak to that
more clearly.
Ms. Grote: I also believe the applicant’s transportation consultant is here as well to
explain their methodology that they used in the impact analysis and Carl Stoffel from our
Transportation Staff is also here.
Commissioner Holman: I don’t want to deny anyone an opportunity if they wish to
speak.
Mr. Chris Grey, Fehr & Peers Associates: Hi. Let me first talk very quickly in general
about how we do our studies. We first of all do our studies in conjunction with the City.
I have worked with Carl for a number of years. Carl pretty much tells us what he wants
to study and how he wants the study and we go ahead and do the study. At various points
we provide the study to him for his review and comment:
Regarding some of the particular routes, as Russ very eloquently said, we don’t really
know for certain the routes that every single person will take to get to this site. We can
make what we consider to be estimates based on our professional judgment and in
particular by looking at the distances we felt that a routing along Charleston and along E1
Camino was actually a shorter distance than taking 101 up to Oregon Expressway. Now
some people may not agree with that but I think what needs to be recognized is that
regardless of whether someone is coming down taking that particular route or someone
would come down Page Mill it would still make sense for them to turn right at Page Mill.
That is a congested intersection and that right turn often does not get congested. I
personally drove that route this afternoon and found that while the Charleston one was a
little bit slower at times it did get m~ off the freeway. Another thing to consider is that
we don’t necessarily know this but people do make intermediate stops. A key issue to
remember is that there are approximately 55,000 cars on E1 Camino. I think it is
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
unreasonable to believe that some of those people on E1 Camino will not be stopping at
the project. Our.TIA assumed that a majority or about two-thirds of the people are
coming down Sheridan to use the project and about one-third of the people are coming
from E1 Camino. We believe those estimates are reasonable. Now, will every single
person follow the route that we said? To be honest probably not but we think that the
distribution that we have come up with is generally reasonable and it is based upon our
experience. So that is essentially what we did. °
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, any questions for the consultant? Thank you. Carl would you
have any additions you would like to make to that? It looks like we have a question for
you. If you would come forward we would appreciate your participation.
Commissioner Butt: If someone is coming from the south whether it be from Charleston,
San Antonio or Page Mill they all are going to be migrating northward but if they are
coming from Page Mill which frankly I think would be a more common route than
Charleston wouldn’t a certain percentage of those take the turnoff off of Page Mill that
would take them over to Sheridan? Birch?
Mr. Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer: Birch is the first one Ash is the second one
where you might possibly get stuck in a queue waiting for the signal.
Commissioner Burt: So was that evaluated as far as a likely route and does that change
any of the assumptions?
Mr. Stoffel: I think Mr. Grey did all the detailed work. The people that he had routed
coming down that direction on Page Mill, I don’t know, I am sure that some number of
those he would have turning off of Page Mill at either Birch or Ash and then mining left
onto Sheridan as opposed to going to E1 Camino. He could answer that.
Let me just make a general comment about this whole trip generation process. You
probably remember about a year or so ago we had a trip generation expert here talking
about the variability of trip generation data. That also goes for the other two parts which
are some assumptions about where people live, how many people live in the east part of
San Jose versus west and so on. Those are assumptions that are pretty widely variable.
Those affect routing. Then of course the business about which actual route you will take
and the many different reasons people take different routes. So the sum is that there
really isn’t a correct answer to any of those. The work that Mr. Grey did as he said not
everybody is going to take that route. The survey of the residents, they may take those
routes that doesn’t mean the people living in the complex or visiting will take those
routes. There is a lot of variability there and I think with that understanding we never
quite know how many people are going to make the right turn there or go further on but
we have a general idea of what kind of percentage increase we are talking about on
Sheridan as a result of that. Knowing that it is a variable number it could slide a little bit
one way or slide a little bit the other.
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: Okay, I understand it can slide one way or another and I understand
that it is an inexact science. Having said that, is it correct that the traffic analysis
assumed that the bulk of the trips coming from the south would come up E1 Camino from
the San Antonio/Charleston area and not from Page Mill? Is that correct?
Mr. Stoffel: Well, as I said there is not a correct or incorrect answer. One thing to
remember is that this particular piece of the analysis for the impact we are generally
focusing a lot on the peak hour. There is a lot of congestion on the freeway and there is a
tendency for a lot of people especially in the future for people to be turning offthe
freeway early to avoid getting stuck.
Commissioner Burt: Carl, I think there is a correct answer as to not necessarily the
absolutes of what would occur but what was used for the traffic analysis. That is the
nature of my question and if you could just or someone could answer that question.
Mr. Stoffel: I think Mr. Grey then would be the best person. He did the work on that.
Mr. Grey: Very simply the answer to your question is we assumed that people who are
coming from the south would come up E1 Camino.
Commissioner Butt: And not predominantly from Page Mill?
Mr. Grey: That is correct. We did route a number of people from the east who would be
taking Page Mill.
Commissioner Butt: So what led you to that assumption? As a long-time resident and
before that a worker in the City that is not the assumption I would make.
Mr. Grey: I never thought anyone would actually use E1 Camino until I personally
worked on the E1 Camino Real schematic design. One of my tasks was driving up and
down E1 Camino with a little GPS transponder in my car performing some analysis to
figxtre out what is the average travel time on E1 Camino versus some of the average
routes. What I was surprised particularly in the southern part of the corridor was there
are some very long stretches where if you time the signals right and you go fast enough
you can, to be very un-technical, hoof it. You can get going quite quickly if you know
what you are doing. Plus at various times if you are go in the off-peak E1 Camino Real
gets very congested at the major intersections but you have long stretches where you are
just one of a group of cars that are going along. So it was really based on the experience
and all the time that I spent working on that project and looking at the traffic flows and
looking at the traffic counts in the area and personally driving the corridor any number of
times as part of that particular project and other work in Palo Alto.
Commissioner Burt: Well, with all due respect, I just think that is an erroneous
assumption. It may not have a significant impact on this project but the other half of my
question on your assumption for origins not on!y do I assume that the bulk of the folks
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
who would come from 101 would come up Oregon Expressway. Did you evaluate or
assume any significant traffic coming from Page Mill and 280?
Mr. Grey: Yes we did. We also assigned trips from Page Mill that would come up north
on 280 that would be mining onto Page Mill and then would be turning left onto E1
Camino and right into the project.
Commissioner Butt: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Do we have some comments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. I have some comments on the traffic on this comer. I go to
work from Midtown to Welch Road which means I go somehow or other either through
this intersection or up Middlefield to Embarcadero and over. It is true if you go the speed
limit on E1 Camino in the morning before heavy traffic comes and that is usually before
ten o’clock you can get through most of those lights or several lights without stopping at
a time. So sometimes I can go with only one stop from the comer of Oregon all the way
up to Stanford Shopping Center and get that far. It is timed to keep the traffic moving
along there. I have also worked south and that means I have to get off someplace to get
to where I live. Where I get off depends on how bad the traffic backs up. So if the traffic
is very backed up I get off at Middlefield and sometimes that’s really backed up but
usually I get off at Reinsdorff. I don’t happen to go down E1 Camino. So I suspect
people will take a variety of routes based on that.
The other thing I have been doing is since this came to us last July I have been
deliberately going this way so that I could cut through the traffic and see what it looks
like. I work a varied number of hours so I go to work anywhere from well, usually not
before 6:30 in the morning and usually not afternoon when I go and coming back that
way isn’t convenient to turn the comer and around. So I am going down that street at
different times of the day. When you go real early there is almost no one parked on the
street that indicates to me that most of the people who live there are pretty well parked.
As I go later and later you can see people coming and parking in order to go to the
neighborhood businesses on California Avenue or wherever they are going and it gets
pretty full. By ten o’clock there is nothing left and probably by nine there is nothing left.
Those aren’t people who necessarily are living in those apartments. I went by last night
just for the fun of it about nine o’clock and the trip was operating and there were maybe a
third of the spaces empty at that time. I was surprised how much activity was going on at
nine o’clock down on California Avenue all over the place and how many cars were
parked in the parking lot. I was interested as Michael was in the possibility of some two-
hour parking in this area. The reason was both people at the Silverwood apartments and
the people across the street at 410 Sheridan don’t have places for people to park during
the day because other people are parking there. The other is that it is also very
convenient to come in if you are not using the garage underneath and park for a short
period of time and leave. Those were my observations.
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other thing I wanted to say was we are talking about 280 traffic trips per day and that
is the outside maximum. We are talking about 23 staff. In this kind of a facility staff
works staggered shifts. It is not like an office. People don’t come at nine, take an hour’s
lunch break and go home at five or 5:30 or whatever the hours are with everyone coming
at once and everyone having an hour .for lunch to go out and everyone coming back.
Very few people will have hours for lunch. They usually get half an hour. The lunches
are staggered so they can keep the place staffed so they get to go alone or maybe with one
other person who they can get a hold of because the other person is on the other side of
the building assigned someplace else. So most people eat close in this kind of working
arrangement. I would love to go out to lunch more but it just doesn’t work where I work
nor has it any place else I’ve worked in this field. That means that there aren’t very many
trips during lunch they way they are from Stanford Shopping Center. It also means that
they are coming to work at a wide range of times 6:30 in the morning, 7:00 in the
morning, 8:00 in the morning and that will mean it is very difficult to pick them up.
There is a shuttle, Stanford provides a shuttle called the Marguerite, it runs down
California Avenue and it is available for the general public. So people who wish to pick
up the Marguerite from the train station could come down and get off the Marguerite a
little closer than this if the Marguerite was there at the time. I have other comments but I
think it is other people’s ram.
Chair Griffm: With Commissioners indulgence I have not at this stage closed the public
hearing. Although we don’t make a habit of doing this Angelica Volterra is the primary
witness for the other side of this issue. I am wondering, Angie, would you like to come
down and make a few comments to clarify this particular point.
Ms. Volterra: Thank you so much. With regard to Commissioner Burt’s comments they
state in that Traffic Impact Analysis that all inbound traffic and that is a direct quote, all
inbound traffic they route up from northbound 101. That is a 7.5. If you add up the
percentages of each trip it actually comes to 101%. I have done every one of these
calculations repeatedly. It is 101% and of that 101% 7.5% is routed northbound 101
exiting San Antonio, etc. Because that 7.5 with that unusual routing would come in on
the west side of Sheridan that diminishes the overall amount of traffic to under the 25%
threshold. Now if you route that 7.5 the normal way which would be coming northbound
on 101, exiting at Oregon, taking either Birch or Ash which would be what most cars
would do and then coming to the project that 7.5 which would be approaching from
Sheridan east of the project you would add that 7.5 and again that causes it to exceed that
25% threshold. Along with other things like not taking that three percent diminishment
for the TDM measure which they shouldn’t take because they exceed the 2,000 feet from
the Cal Train.
The other point I want to make is that the employees this isn’t a typical nine to five type
employee arrangement. There will be employees that are there at nighttime, coming in
early morning shifts, it is dark, many of them will not be likely to take public transit.
That is well known that many of them won’t because it can be fairly dangerous to walk to
Cal Train and wait. There are so many things I could say.
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other thing is as Mr. Zemanek noted at the Belmont facility we were standing there
when the UPS truck drove to the front, which was not the place where the delivery trucks
were supposed to be delivering. So lots of thing I could say about this project. Again I
have studied it in detail. I wish I could spend an hour or two talking about all the
problems but those are some of the salient points I think. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, AnNe. Phyllis, you have a comment.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I work with medical assistants. I have worked with them in many
different facilities. If there is any way some of them can take public transit they will their
incomes are not good.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion.
Chair Griffin: I will close the public hearing. Karen, you have a question?
Commissioner Holman: Yes. There was something that the applicant had agreed to
previously which was to give preferential offerings of these units to Palo Alto residents.
They said they would be happy to agree with that. I don’t find that.
Mr. Emslie: It is in the BMR agreement. It is written in that. We can find the specific
reference.
Commissioner Holman: That’s just the BMR units though. Is it just for the BMR units
and not for the whole facility?
Mr. Emslie: Correct. Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Their position earlier was that this would satisfy some of Palo
Alto’s housing demand because people would be moving out of their homes and into this
so unless it is for the whole facility that Palo Alto residents were given preferential
treatment then that really doesn’t hold true. They did agree voluntarily to agree with that
last time.
Mr. Emslie: I don’t believe we can make that a condition. If they wanted to do that on a
volunteer basis you may ask them for that commitment but we cannot make that a
condition of the approval.
Commissioner Holman: If they agreed to it you could though, right?
Mr. Emslie: But I think we would want to be sure we were careful to word it in a way
that was legally enforceable should they care not to agree to it in the future. So we would
prefer not including it as a condition and asking the applicant.to consider it.
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The applicant showed us a table comparing prospective trip
generation for various uses including what they said was a prospective use of
condominiums and restaurant under the current zoning. Can Staff comment on whether
those assertions whether they are essentially in agreement with those assertions?
Ms. Grote: I would say that yes we are essentially in agreement. We haven’t done any
specific analysis of that but yes, if there was a mixed use project on the site you would
have a commercial trip generation rate and a residential trip generation rate combined.
So that would certainly be greater than what is going to be generated by a residential
facility of this type. I actually from just looking at the chart briefly thought that their
condominium only estimates were a little bit low. I think that if we had about 37 to 40
condominiums on the site which it would accommodate you would probably get closer,
and the traffic engineers who are here can correct me, but I think you would probably get
closer to 55 trips in the peak hour rather than I think the 30 or 32 that they showed on
their chart. So I think they underestimated the condominium only project but probably
accurately estimated the mixed use project.
Mr. Emslie: I would just like to add to Lisa’s comment. This is a very low trip
generating use. The senior housing of this type for assisted living for very frail elderly
experience has shown that it does generate very little traffic from residents. It does have
the employee trips. Those employee trips are also the fact that they are staggered that it
is a round the clock operation actually enhances the low trip generation because many of
the trips are done not at the peak hour when demand for traffic space and capacity is less.
So I think it is important to keep it in perspective that this is on the low end of the trip
generation and being that it is at one of our more congested intersections we think that it
is an appropriate way to utilize the site and provide a segment of housing that is
important for our compliment of housing in Palo Alto and at the same time providing the
kinds of services that we have discussed in the BMR. We think on balance, the fact that
it is low trip generating, we have an extraordinary BMR agreement that includes services
and it provides a segment of housing that is necessary are very compelling reasons to
move forward with the project.
Chair Griffin: I was going to give Bonnie a crack at this but Pat did you have something
else?
Commissioner Burt: Just one follow up question to help me through one problem that I
am having. IfI agree that this is fundamentally a low trip generating project and am
supportive of the project in all other aspects but see a problem with the traffic analysis
assumptions on the origins of those trips and have no idea whether that would affect any
of the conclusions that this is an appropriate Negative Declaration help me through how
that might work. IfI don’t have a basis to assume that if the assumptions had been
correct about the direction that these cars would be coming from that it would change the
conclusion of the Negative Declaration but I do have concerns about those assumptions
how can a Commissioner approve this project going forward under those dual concerns?
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Emslie: Dan may care to weigh in about your legal requirements to consider the
document. Basically you have to certify that this document adequately addresses the
impacts. It identifies them and they are properly mitigated. So if you can’t do that, if
you don’t agree, then you need to voice that and indicate on the record that you would
like the analysis to be amended in order for you to make your findings of completeness of
this. It ultimately comes down to your individual assessment as to the adequacy of the
disclosure of the impacts on balance. Dan, you might want to weigh in on this as well.
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Council to City Attorneys: I really don’t have anything more
to add to that. As Steve pointed out you are adopting the Negative Declaration and you
are stating that the analysis of the impacts are sufficient. It is also important to keep in
mind too that you rely not only on what is in your packet tonight on the Negative
Declaration but everything that was introduced at tonight’s hearing too as far as evidence
to base your conclusions on the Negative Declaration. So if you think a combination of
what you have in front of you satisfies your concerns then that is fine otherwise you do
have the discretion to ask for additional analysis.
Commissioner Burr: Would that additional analysis require a rehearing or can that be
forwarded to the Council as kind of an addendum to an approval of the Negative
Declaration?
Mr. Soder~en: You could direct that before it goes to Council that Stafftake another
look at it and clarify any information in the Negative Declaration based on that analysis.
Commissioner Burt: Without denying the Negative Declaration at this time?
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
Commissioner Burt: That helps me. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification on that? So you are saying that it
wouldn’t be a denial of the Negative Declaration but you are calling into question so you
are not saying that the Negative Declaration is adequate though.
Mr. Sodergen: It is my understanding that the recommendation would be that you feel
the Negative Declaration is adequate with the addition of a condition that Staff take a
second look to ensure that there is no further modifications necessary and that once that
second look is complete then that condition is basically satisfied. So you are basically
conditionally approving the Negative Declaration.
Chair Griffin: If I understand it correctly you are not going to go back and resurvey the
raw data rather you are going to examine the report that has already been produced to see
if there is a different interpretation of that but you are not going to go out and for example
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
come up with a brand new analysis from scratch that would take the freeway traffic off at
Oregon/Page Mill for example and restudy the impacts on Sheridan. Did you follow all
that?
Mr. Sodergren: That was my understanding of the intent of the question that it was just
kind of a double-check on the analysis that has already occurred. If you want new
analysis and you don’t feel .that this analysis - you want to redo the whole thing then I
would recommend directing that it be restudied and brought back.
Chair Griffm: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question. Does the Commission have the ability to
condition the hours of shift changes so that they don’t conflict say with other traffic
loads, i.e., the Research Park?
Mr. Sodergren: It would have to be worked in and there would have to be some sort of
nexus arrived at and I am not sure how that would relate to the traffic mitigation plan. It
would have to be something that would have to be considered in that context.
Mr. Reich: Being that there is such a small volume of employees I don’t think that there
would be an incredible benefit to limiting when the employees come and go. It is just a
natural function of this type of facility that they don’t typically all travel during peak
hours. Because there are so few that would be traveling during peak hours it would be
incredibly disruptive to the operation of the facility and not very beneficial in terms of
reducing peak hour traffic.
Commissioner Lippert: I was hoping somebody would say something like that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would have said it But he said it.
Commissioner Packer: I would have said it too. Michael?
Chair Griffin: Bonnie we are ready for you.
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
Mr. Sodergren: While we are wrapping up the traffic portion, and I apologize, I just
wanted to do one point of clarification. There was some discussion about cumulative
impacts under CEQA and whether or not we needed to take into account some of our
housing inventory sites. I just wanted to clarify that under CEQA we really have to base
our analysis on existing conditions at the time we take in the application and we are not
really required nor can we take into account future projects that are only speculative at
this point and only mere possibilities. We are required to take into account projects in the
vicinity that have actually received approval but these housing sites in our housing
inventory those sites under the Housing Element are simply sites that have the potential
to supply additional housing units and they don’t raise to that level under CEQA where
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
we really have to take them into account. At this point they are mere possibilities. So I
just wanted to clarify that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: Dan I thought you had answered my previous question on this
Negative Declaration issue until you answered Michael’s and now I am not so sure. I am
going to be as clear as I can. I am comfortable with the assumptions about the total trip
generation for this project and that they are lower than most other projects including what
would be allowed under current zoning. I as my questions and statements have indicated
I think that the assumptions about the origin of those trips may have significant flaws.
Can I properly support a Negative Declaration with a, I forget how you characterized it,
and ask for a reevaluation of that origin and not require a complete reexamination of the
Negative Declaration or a complete re-traffic analysis?
Mr. Sodergren: Now I think I better understand your question. Under CEQA you base
your decision on the Negative Declaration and the adequacy of the Negative Declaration
on all the evidence submitted, the traffic study, your own observations, testimony of the
public. You take all of that into the mix and so you can rely on more than just the Fehr &
Peers traffic study. You can rely on basically everything that is considered evidence. So
if you are comfortable with the adequacy of the impacts and you think that those are
correctly stated regardless of what evidence you use to support that conclusion then I
think you can state that .you can vote to adopt the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Burt: Good, that gives me essentially half the answer I need. The other
half is if we ask for some supplemental analysis if we support the Negative Declaration
and the project tonight but ask that before Council approves this there be some
reexamination of some of the traffic assumptions can that include a reexamination of
assumptions about the origins of the trips and not a reexamination about the quantity of
trips?
Mr. Sodergren: I think you could direct that. You have the discretion to direct that.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you that fully answers my question.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: It is a follow up to that. I am not expert at this but I have never
heard of being able to conditionally approve a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, which is kind of what this would be.
Mr. Sodergren: Yes well I think it is important to point out that what you are doing is
recommending to the Council that the Negative Declaration is adequate. It was my
understanding that the suggestion was yes as it stands right now we believe that the
Negative Declaration is adequate however just to make certain, just to double-check, we
would just want to have that restudied again or taken a second look at before it goes to
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Council but assuming that it is the same we believe that it is adequate. If it needs to be
tweaked a little bit then it can be tweaked before it goes to Council but what you are
doing is simply a recommendation at this point. So I think the recommendation would be
that in general you think it is adequate.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I’ve been waiting. I think the questions that my fellow
Commissioners were asking while I was waiting to make a motion were good ones and I
thank you all for that because it helps me as well.
I would like to make a motion now to recommend to that the City Council approve this
Planned Community Environmental Document by recommending approval of the
Ordinance that is attached and all the Exhibits and the findings that are in the Ordinance
and that we certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
First we need a second.
Chair Griffin: Good idea. Do we have a second?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I make a second.
Commissioner Packer: Then I will make my comments as generally why I am
recommending that we recommend this to City Council and then I will talk about the
Negative Declaration issue that we have been discussing.
As Staff has said that this is a facility and it is very exciting that we could have a facility
with these kinds of services and this oppommity for seniors for assisted living and those
with Alzheimer’s issues. The building is well designed. There has been very good
response to the neighbors especially the concerns of the residents at Silverwood. The
parks are nice public amenities and I can see that it really might get used by people
waiting for the bus because it is right there especially the one on E1 Camino. One point
that hasn’t been made that a facility of this type that is close to the wonderful medical
facilities that we have in this town will be a real asset. The Palo Alto Medical
Foundation is just down the street as well as Stanford and it has been my personal
experience that there are often needs for visits to these facilities of this population. I
think the parking is not an issue. There is only going to be 23 employees, there are 44
spots that leaves about 20 spots for visitors. I can’t imagine that there would be overflow
parking on the street. When I was at Sheridan today there was plenty of empty spaces to
park in the afternoon. It may be further down the line it may be appropriate to see if a
two-hour parking limit would be needed but I think a study ought to be done first and we
shouldn’t require it at this time. Let’s wait until the building is built and is in operation
Page 36
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
for a year and if complaints come from the public that there is a parking problem then
that is the time to look into it.
1
2
3
4 Now going to the issues of the Negative Declaration my motion finds that it is adequate
5 that I can certify it based on all the information, the TIA is just one aspect. There are so
6 few trips being generated by this project that I think we are getting a little over-analytical
7 about the origins of these trips and the kind of impacts they may make. If there are
8 55,000 trips on E1 Camino nine AM peak hour trips are not going to be noticed. So I
9 think we need to be realistic and let this project go forward without having to do further
10 studies. That is not to say that the TIA is a perfect study but I don’t know that we need to
have it perfect in order for the policy makers to be able to make their decision.
Chair Griffin: The seconder?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well I will agree with what Bonnie said and let’s see ifI can pick up
some things that she didn’t say. I think the PC zone is an appropriate zone because we
don’t have a zone that matches this site. So this particular use and no place to put it in
town with this particular use under an existing zone so this works nicely. It is a mix of
use in a strange way that we aren’t used to thinking of. It does both residential and
employs people. I think the public benefit is adequate and I think this is a novel public
benefit. Sometimes it seems a little risky to do something new but I think we should do
this and see how it goes. I think it would be very helpful if we can model this if we need
it in the future. Bonnie talked about parking I think I will reinforce what she said about
the number of trips that are involved here. I think people come from all over. They will
come from the south, the west, the east and the north. It is about 34 people in this place
over the daytime shift for people who are there and if you divide those in any way you
are not going to get very many trips in the morning or very many trips out in the
afternoon. There are other people who will be there over the day and the same thing will
be true they will come from all directions. I like the fact that this building has been
brought forward to the road and away from the other apartments. I like the fact that the
fire lane is in the back because it gives more space. The TDM program will be helpful
for people. In the reading I have done here it indicates that the generating equipment that
was in the back that we complained about last time has been moved forward towards the
street so that won’t make noise back where the Silverwood apartments are. I think I will
leave it at that. Maybe someone else has some other comments. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Lee are you going to make some comments on this item?
Commissioner Lippert: Sure. First I should state for the record that I did not participate
in the September and November hearings so I will have to abstain on taking action. I do
enthusiastically support the project. I think with regard to the BMR and TDM programs
they are significant enough. I have to tell you if this was an apartment building or some
other residential use say a hotel I might not be inclined to support this project. But I
believe that because this is an assisted care facility it is like voting against apple pie and
motherhood. This is an extraordinary project. It is an extraordinary opportunity. To
overlook it would be a terrible mistake by anybody. I think that it follows the tenets of
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
the Comp Plan and I think it is a more than adequate use of the PC process. I think they
have done an exemplary job and I heartily support the project.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Well you set a stage, Lee. So how do you speak against
motherhood and apple pie? As I said before I really do like the project. I think it is a
terrific project. At the same time I still have concerns about it as I did before. With all
due respect I am truly not understanding about the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the
assumptions that are made in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are not ones that I can
make I think I have to not agree with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. So again with
all due respect that is what I feel comfortable with. The origins of the traffic aren’t
logical to me either. The other couple of things are I personally like to see, it is a good
public benefit at the same time it is hard for me knowing a lot of people who are retired it
is hard for me to consider that these BMR rates are truly BMR. So I would prefer to see
them at a lower rate and I understand that this is difficult to arrive at because it is a very
unique project and I am sure a lot of work went into it and great appreciation for that
effort. At the same time these numbers are pretty steep to be considered BMR. I do
understand also it is a pretty high-end facility but people that I know that are retired this
would not be within their reach even at the BMR rates. I do have some concern about the
height of the building at the comer of E1 Camino and Page Mill. I do have concern about
the height although we do bring buildings to the street faces it is pretty Shear and tall at
that point and it seems to be a bit a lot there, if you will. I think the fire lane issue has
been explained but I do have real, real concerns when that VTA site gets developed what
is going to happen there in regards to access. So those would be my comments.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Well on the whole I think this is an excellent project. It has very
good overall purposes but on top of that the developer has responded to the input from
the neighbors and from the Commission and from the Staff and improved the process as
it has gone forward. I think it has excellent public amenities and benefit not only the
BMR units which I think we need to clarify, those rates are maximum rates and that they
are capped at I believe it was 70% of the income of the residents, so it is very possible
that the actual rates will be sigrfificantly lower than that for qualified residents. Then I
think that the mini parks are going to be a good addition especially the one right near the
VTA stop. I think that is going to be a great little place for a bus stop that is a mini park
that is also going to be across the street from our future community soccer fields as well
as the services for Avenidas. I would like to note one thing that I find very commendable
and I hope will show up in future projects and that is a small community garden for a
planned development and I would like to see that in other future planned developments.
As far as this issue on the Negative Declaration I am comfortable with supporting the
project and the Negative Declaration overall because I believe that the core presumptions
about trips generated are likely to be right in the accurate ballpark, as accurate as can be
reasonably expected, and that this other issue about origin if the Staff reexamines that
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
issue prior to going to Council then I am comfortable with supporting the Negative
Declaration. I would like to clarify for Commissioner Packer the concern has nothing to
do with traffic on E1 Camino. The concern has to do with potential traffic on other parts
of Sheridan, Ash and Birch. That is what the issue is about. So if the maker of the
motion will accept that friendly amendment that Staff evaluate and provide to Council
that reviewed evaluation it would not interfere with the progress of the project then I
would comfortable with supporting the motion.
Commissioner Packer: I will accept that.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Chair Griffin: All right that has been accepted. Well I feel like I am on the teeter-totter
here because there is a part of me that would like to be able to support Mr. Zemanek’s
apple pie along with most of my colleagues. I will say that I have been favorably
impressed with the comments provided in the Staff Report and comments made tonight
by Staffon behalf of the project from the standpoint that this Sunrise development would
in fact yield a smaller amount of net traffic involvement than would the original zoning.
I am trying to wrestle still a bit with the parking aspects. I am not as sanguine about it as
some of my colleagues and I really would have a higher comfort level with this were we
to have an item in our conditions of approval that we would at least have Staff take a look
at the on-street parking. I agree with you Bonnie it is possible to do it later on I am just
trying to lock it in and make sure that we don’t overlook it and at least I would feel better
in my own heart that we had made a concrete stab at making sure we were not making
life any more difficult for the residents of Sheridan Street than necessary. So I would ask
for a friendly amendment that that study of the necessity for having a two-hour parking
program on the block occupied by 2701 E1 Camino.
Commissioner Packer: Clarification. When would you want this study to occur?
Chair Griffin: It would be undertaken six months after the opening date of project so as
to permit sufficient time for the street to return to a semblance of normalcy and hopefully
we would then be measuring the project at its completed status.
Commissioner Packer: I think I could accept a friendly amendment that directs Staff to
do a study six months after the project is open to see whether a two-hour parking would
be warranted on Sheridan. Does that reflect what your amendment would be?
Chair Griffin: It does.
Commissioner Packer: I would accept that.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Seconder?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes.
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
Chair Griffin: Pat did you have a comment?
Commissioner Burr: Just that I am comfortable with Staff evaluating the impact of the
parking. I don’t want to prescribe an outcome to that study if we see any particular
impact. So I would be much more comfortable with something closer to what Lisa had
spoken about earlier that would evaluate the on-street parking impact and not preclude
two-hour parking as one of the options that would be considered but I don’t want to get
into prescribing an outcome.
Commissioner Packer: I accept that as a clarification to what I said.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would also.
Chair Griffin: Everything appears to be satisfactory. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am in agreement with the comments as well. I find that my
neighborhood where I live near Webster House and Lytton Gardens some of the residents
do manage to sneak their cars in one way or the other. I think that that will help
significantly to reduce that if that is examined or looked at with regard to two-hour
parking. It will also ensure that any staff in the facility that is working there for the day
either park in the building or use some other form of transportation to get there.
MOTION PASSED (4-1-1-1, Commissioner Holman voted no, Commissioner Lippert
abstained and Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Griffin: If there are no other comments I think we can vote on this item. All those
in favor of Bonnie’s amended motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) So the item
passes with the exception of Commissioners Holman who votes negative and Bialson
who is absent and Lippert who abstains. That brings to a close item number two. We
will now take a seven-minute break.
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Wednesda3; November 12, 2003
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, Jst Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Comlnissioners:
Michael G~qffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burr
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - conflicted with Item
Joseph Bellomo - absent
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney
Joseph Kort, Chief Transportation Official
Dan Sodegren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Amy French, CurT"ent Planning Manager
Steven Turner, Planner
Russ Reich, Associate Planner
Zariah Berten, Executive Secretau,
A GEN-DIZED ITEMS:
1. 2701 E1 Camino Real
2. 4010 Page Mill Road
3. Proposed Replacement and Enhancement of an Equestrian Crossing on .4a’astradero Road
between the Portola Pastures driveway and the Arastradero Preserve.
4. Planning and Transportation Commission to initiate changes to the Zoning Ordinance to
address issues raised in the report by the City Auditor regarding permit processes and
appeals.
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to the re=malar
meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, November 12. Would
the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
We will now undertake the Oral Communications.
OPAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to an?, item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffin: We have no cards so we will move to Unfinished Business.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Griffin: The first item the public hearing is already open because we continued this item
from a previous meeting. It 2701 E1 Carnino Real a request by Sunrise Development Inc. for a
proposed senior assisted living facility comprised of 81 living units. It is a quasi-judicial item
subject to Council’s disclosure policy. So I would like to poll my colleagues to see if the}, have
any disclosures the v‘,ish to make at this time. I will start on my right with Bonnie. No
disclosures. Phyllis? Pat?
Commissioner Bun: Yes. I attended a Staff facilitated tour of a Sunrise facility in Belmont this
past week.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I attended the same tour and revisited the local site today.
Chair Griffin: I.as well attended that session in Belmont. Would Staff like to make their
presentation nov,’ please?
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Public Hearings:
2701 E1 Camino Real*: Request by Sunrise Development Inc. for a proposed
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to Service Commercial from Neighborhood
Commercial and Multiple Family Residential and a Planned Community Zone change to
allow an 80,577 square foot senior assisted living facility comprised of 81 living units on
an approximate one acre lot currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and High
Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40). SR Weblink:
htm://www, citvofDatoalto, or a/cit~,a aen daJDublish!N annina -tran sp ortati on -meetin_~s/2623.~3df
Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Plannin£ Official: Thank you Chair Griffin and Commissioners. I did
want to just go over some of the follow up items from the September 10th hearing. The first one
of those items has to do with the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. Since September 10 we
have looked ve~, carefully at the uses being proposed in the building and determined that the
Alzheimer’s or dementia portion of the building, which is about 15,000 square feet, is not a
residential use. It is a commercial use much more like a convalescent facility than a typical or
standard residential use. For that reason it is not counted into the residential square footage.
That results in a reduction in the number of units being proposed which is 59 for the assisted care
which would be considered and then 22 spaces or units for the commercial use which is more of
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
a convalescent nature. So the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment would not be needed since
the number of people in the residential portion would be about 59, well there would be 59 units
and 68 people which fails within the 90 people per acre parameter that is set in the
Comprehensive Plan for a residential land use for multiple family residential. Then the
remaining people that are in the commercial portion are counted as a permitted use within
residential land uses. Those are typically in non-PC developments typically considered under a
conditional use permit. Since this is a Planned Community there would not be a need for the
conditional use permit you write the allowed use into the use section of the PC ordinance. So we
have determined that the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is not needed.
The desig-n alternatives that the Commission had asked the applicant to consider are being
brought forward tonight and they would like to go over that in more detail with you. Basically
the3, involve pulling the building further away from the adjacent condominium building that is
there now, closer to El Camino Real and relocating the drive isle and the auto court. They wilt
be going into more detail about that with you tonight.
Something to consider when you are looking at those alternatives is that in a traditional RM-40
development that would be on this site could be slightly fewer than 40 units the size of the
building could equal somewhere between 57,000 to 58,000 square feet if you accounted for an
average of about a 1,250 square foot unit within again about a 15% increase for hallways,
elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, stairwells, things like that. It would result in about a 57,000
to 58,000 square foot building. This is about a 62,000 square foot building above m-ade. So it is
within the range of what might be developed in an RM-40 zone. So that is something to keep in
mind as you are looking at the design .alternatives.
The Staff did look at, as did the applicant, available assisted care facilities in the area. We
looked at facilities from Redwood City to Sunnyvale and there are about 13 facilities that our
Staff contacted. We included that ~n one of your attachments. What we found is that there is a
wide variety of types of facilities out there. That it is difficult to come up with one that is exactly
like this. There are a couple and I think you toured one of them in Belmont and there is one in
Sunn~,ale but there are just a ve~ wide variety of types of assisted care facilities. There are
some vacancies in almost all of them that were presented in your Staff Report however there is
an unmet need in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has one of the highest ratios of senior citizens that might
be looking for this kind of facility. So there is an unmet need and the apphcant can go into more
detail with you about that. Again there are a wide variety of types of facilities.
We did contact the Valley Transportation Authority to explore the possibility of joint
development on that site. The3, are not prepared to develop their site at this point. The3, don’t
have the money to co-develop anything at this point. The facilities that you had inquired about
in San Jose that are currently being developed where excess parking facilities. They are not
determined to be needed at this point and therefore VTA entered into agreements with
developers on one site for the entire site and for another site for a portion of the site that was in
excess. That is why they were able to move forward with those facilities and development on
those sites. This facility is not in excess facility. It is one that is used and needed and they don’t
currently have the money to co-develop it. The3, would be willing to explore in the future
perhaps leasing or selling the site as long as the spaces that are on the site remain there in some
form.
Cir.. of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
The operational impacts that you had inquired about including noise-generating equipment will
be addressed by the applicant but the proposal is to pull those.forward towards E1 Camino,
forward on the building and away from again the adjacent residential uses. The building itself
will actually help reduce some of the noise from E1 Camino to the adjacent residential uses. So
they will be talking a bit more about the equipment and where that would be located.
The sustainability checklist that you had asked for is attached to the Staff Report. There is an
error in our Staff Report. We had said that the building would reach a platinum rating that in fact
isn’t the case. It would reach a certified level. Again, we don’t have a sustainability requirement
at this point in the City but a certified level is certainly a very good level and the applicant is
willing to include those sustainabiliB, measures in their desig-n.
The arborist did submit a tree report, which recommends removal of six trees on the site. Our
planning arborist has reviewed that report and concurs With the removal of those trees. He
would like to discuss further the removal of the holly oak because it may in fact endanger the
adjacent oak. So there may be a need to remove the holly oak as well but he is in ageement with
the arborist report.
The BMR, Below Market Rate, ageement. The applicant has ageed to provide below market
rate space and services for 11 residence. This is 15% of the 68 residents that would live in the
assisted care units. Ten spaces would be 15% so these 11 spaces are a little bit more than 15%
actually. Again it is for services as well as space but it would goto residence. So there would be
!1 positions reserved at a below market rate for those residents. That is especially important to
note that it is for the services as well as the physical space because the services are what is the
most expensive component in this type of facility. The remaining 15:000 square feet that is now
in commercial more convalescent care facilities would pay the commercial housing fee. So the
!1 BMR positions would be for 11 residents and then the 15,000 square feet would pay the
commercial housing fee.
Then finally the public benefit involves as mentioned before the coordination with Avenidas
Senior Facility, Trees for E1 Camino Real, the bus shelter and pedestrian amenity along E1
Camino and then future access to the VTA site should that ever be developed in the future. The
applicant has a~eed to coordinate that access for the life of their building.
So with that we would ask that the Commission comment on the additional information and
revised proposal and recommend whether or not this is read?, to go to the Architectural Review
Board. That concludes the Staff Report.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Unless Commissioners have an?, questions I would like to invite the
applicant to make a presentation. Welcome.
5.~-. Dan Zemanek. Sum~ise Senior Livina SeN,ices: ~Ki. We are here to discuss thep, oj,~,,~" "’~" at
Sheridan and E1 Camino Real. Let me just kind of bring you up to speed. I am going to try to
make this presentation as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for having us back a second
time and thank you to those of you who found time to be able to come out with us to Belmont
last lZriday.
Cir. of PaIo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
When we were here last time we brou~ht this project to the table. As of Sept 10 meeting we had
81 Sunrise assisted living units, we had 38 parking spaces, all the deliveries were being done at
the time basically on Sheridan Avenue, we had access to underm’ound parking near Silverwood
which was up at the northern end of the property and we showe"d a 20 foot setback from
Silverwood at the time. This was the plan that we presented. You can see that we had the
underground garage being entered off of Sheridan, traffic coming down and coming back out.
This was something that a couple of the neighbors were concerned about. Then we had the auto
court for drop off and pick up in this area. Again we were using this area here for truck
deliveries. This was the model that we brought in and I remember Commissioner Bellomo was
very shocked that we had gotten this far along in the process. We had been looking to prescreen
since last November and we had justgone a distance. The buildings around us of course are
Silverwood to the left and 410 Sheridan here in the foreground.
As of tonight what we are doing, and we are really kind of excited about this because we are
brinNng in 81 units Sunrise building here, the same size but we have 40 parking spaces now. All
the parking spaces nov,: will be underground. All of the deliveries, the major truck deliveries,
wi!l be done on E1 Camino Real. The access to the underzround parking is now nearer to the
center of the building. We will park the van in the under~ound garage as well and instead of a
20-foot setback from Sitverwood and the north boundary we now have a 30-foot setback.
This basically was some of the alternatives that we have gone through. We spent a great deal of
time trying to rearrange this building and I will just go through them very quickly. Some of
them as you can see the parking ramp to the right showing cars coming down that was even
getting closer to Silverwood. Then we had this iteration, which showed the ramp coming in off
of E1 Camino Real, which was really a no-no as far as the Transportation people were concerned.
Then we finally have settled on this plan, which we call Alternate 4.1. This one we are really
excited about because what we have done here is we have taken the auto court and we have ~nade
it very functional by brining traffic in, they would do a potential drop off here, and then either
drive out or they would make a right turn and the3, would go immediately undergound. Once
they get to this point they are underground. The3, would come back in here and the3’ would par};
under this building. At the same time we have rerouted the deliveries to E1 Camino Real and the
trucks will be there instead of along Sheridan. That is going to be a big help because they will
off-load here, they will take it around into the service entrance of the building and they will not
be disturbing an3’ neighbors in the area.
What I did hear and what I just want to quickly show you just by going back and forth how the
building has changed. That was the first one that we brou~ht~ in and now this is the second one.
Something else I want to point out to you too on this because it is very important is we are back
30 feet here instead of 20 feet, we are back to 42 feet before you get t~ a four-stors, element. "
Here we are at 40 feet before you get to a four-story element. So we have softene~t the segue
between buildings.
This is the landscape plan that the landscape architect has put together. One of the things that we
are trying to accomplish, and we will talk about this a little bit later, is we are trying to get
neighbor friendly areas that people can come in and enjoy and treat as their own neighborhood.
This little area i£ here is -~oing to be kind of a mini park with the "~,~I’A, which is the property
. here.
City of Palo Al~o Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
_~7
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Let’s talk about what we will talk about very quickly tonight, appropriate land use with least
impacts, urban design success, progressive transportation programming, extraordinary BIvIR and
public benefits and then finally the response to the neighbor concerns.
The appropriate land use for the site we have done a lot. of positive problem solving since we
were here in September thanks to Staff, thanks to you folks and thanks to the neighbor’s input.
The assisted living, which as you know is blending housing and care. In fact Commissioner
Cassel has mentioned before that it is kind of like a mixed use and it really is: Sunrise’s use of
the site was found by Staff to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which was very
important. Something very interesting, we will provide more housing on this site than the 2002
Amended Housing Element would have provided. We satisfy an unfilled need because after all
this is what we are about here. We are trying to take care of seniors. The 1997 Avenidas study
for senior showed a 85-plus population that will double from 1990 to 2020. Assistance, that is
the activity of daily living that people need help with, will double from the ages of 75 to 85 and
70% of people over 90 require some kind of assistance. Just a couple of very quick graphs.
What this is showing is age 70 to 74 to 90 and over the men in the darker color here, the women
in orange and showing the assistance needed as the ages are attained. You can see here where
men start surpassing women in their requirements for needing assistance when they get to be 90
and over. This is one of the most interesting ones, look at this, the US population is going to
increase by nine percent between 2000 and 2010 and people who are 85 and over are going to
increase by 34% in that same period of time. So we have to take care of our seniors. It is going
to get to be a very critical situation as we move ahead.
No impact to constrained infrastructure. This is very important for what Sunrise provides or
really doesn’t harm. Sunrise residents don’t drive. There will be very few that would ever drive,
very few. We will not impact traffic. Sunrise doesn’t impact schools. We don’t impact parks
and playing fields and we don’t impact libraries. So here is an opportunity to have housing and
yet care for senior citizens at the same time with low impacts. It is like the best of both worlds.
The PC zone change. We understand that you have to compare to an alternate development
under existing zoning and not with leaving the site undeveloped and you have to evaluate the
public benefits. We think Sunrise of Paio Alto can be distinguished as an exceptional PC that is
neither abusive nor controversial. I "know you have had some controversial PCs in Palo Alto.
This one will not be.
I wanted to show you a little bit of how we fit into this and how homogenized it will become.
Out of this site and four sites two of them already are PCs. This is Silverwood here, which is
adjacent to us. This PF zone is the V’rA lot and if the VTA ever does an.vthing there they
probably to have some flexibility will probably have to go in for a PC zone. This is our site. So
once this would be PC’d we would basically be in the same position with the entire square block.
This is even a little PC across the street.
The urban desi~ success. What we are trying to do is create an attractive building. We have to
create a building that is suitable for the people that are going to go into it. Our average age
person is going to be about 83 or 84 years of age. They want to have something that looks
attractive and yet is safe and secure.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
"~1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Create attractive landscape surrounds. We want to welcome public spaces around our E1 Camino
and our Sheridan perimeters and provide bike parking for employees and visitors to be
multimodal.
Then add to the residential character of the neighborhood and then be concerned about
sustainable issues. Just to Nve you a little bit of an idea of what the neighborhood looks like this
is 410 Sheridan, this is a four-story building in fact a little taller than that because the bottom
deck is really above the grade of the street where the parking is but that is directly across the
street from Silverwood and it is also across the street from part of our properD,. This is
Silverwood Condominiums adjacent to us to the north and to the northeast. Then this is an
interesting shot, it looks like we are standing in the middle of the intersection, looking kind of
northwest and here is 410 Sheridan, here is Silverwood, this is the VTA bus stop, the VTA
parking lot and then our site right here. Some things that we are tryi. "ng to do and this is the
northwest portion of this newest plan that we have come up with we are trying to create
something that is going to be very user friendly, neighbor friendly, things that will invite people
to come in and sit and have contemplative times. This is the area that we discussed before trying
to create this mini park along E! Camino next to the VTA lot. Again, we don’t know if the XrI’A
is going to cooperate with us on this in the future but if they don’t this is what it would look like
without bringing the VTA in. I think at the last meeting C~mmissioner Burr you were concerned
about park space in the area and this is something that we tried to move into.
Progressive transportation programming. Again, I don’t want to sound redundant but again, the
major truck deliveries are going to be now cor~lned to E1 Camino Real. There are going to be 40
parking spaces, which will be more than adequate when we had 38 before and that was adequate.
Four curb cuts on Sheridan will be reduced to two. Sunrise will provide a TDM program.
Employees and visitors served by XrfA and Ca! Train and that is really great for our employees
especially for our employees. Then the traffic impacts of course wil! be insig-nificant. The car
trips, I put this little graph together. K the site were developed with 35 condos alone you would
have over 200 car trips. We are going to generate about 280 car trips with our home. K you had
a restaurant with 23 condominiums you could generate close to 1,200 car trips a day out. ~f that
site. So our impact is very, very low.
Now the unique combination of the BMR and the public benefits. We said we had extraordinary
BMR~ which includes not only food and care with the housing. By the way, over the lifetime o~
the project it is about a $10 million cost. We may be the only licensed RCFE facility in the State
of California that is not either subsidized by state or county or city or has bond financing that
offers that. Sunrise will also provide public transit amenity to include sunshades, benches and
game surfaces. We were asked to pledge $5,000 by Trees for El Camino and we are going to
pledge $20,000 to upgrade E1 Camino Real in front of the Sunrise. We will provide meeting
space for Palo Alto seniors through the Avenidas Senior Center. We have worked with Lisa
Hendrickson, the Director at Avenidas, and we are going to be able to put on some seminars for
seniors in Palo Alto as well as the careNvers, those people that are responsible for morn, dad,
grandma and grandpa who are reaching the ages where they need assistance. Again the plan for
a mini park near the VTA bus stop. We will work with the V’fA on future development there in
some form, some size or shape when they get ready to do something.
Lastly the response to the neighbor’s concerns.. I think I have handled most of them here.
Concern about major truck parking on El Camino and again we moved it off of Sheridan. We
Cir. of PaIo Alto Page 7
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1 have reduced the curb cuts from four to two. We are moving part of the mass of the building
2 from the north end, which was close to Silverwood up to E! Camino Real. We are placing as
3 much as possible noise producing equipment up toward El Camino Real. By the way, no matter
4 what we have on the roof we are going to stay within the noise limitations that are set in that
5 area: I think it is something like 72 decibels. Then we have moved the entr3, to parking away
from Silverwood. And we are back to where we started September 10.
So we have the architect here. We have a traffic person here. We have enough people here to
answer questions. We have a BMR specialist. So if you have any questions at all. Let me ask
you what your favor is, would you like the architect to make a presentation on this new plan ri~ht
now or would you rather do it by question and answer?
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, do you have any preference? Otherwise we would do it on a
question and answer basis.
Mr. Zemanek: Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for the presentation. We are now able to entertain questions from
Commissioners. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: You mentioned and your report had identified a TDR program that you had
developed and gone over with Staff. I don’t "know whether it would be best for the developer or
Staff to Nve us some more information on that program.
Ms. Grote: A couple of things. A TDM program? Yes, I think they have and I think the
applicant can probably go into more detail. I wanted to make a very quick correction to
something I said in my oral presentation. The 15,000 square feet is subject to the development
impact fees. I had said commercial housing fees and it is development impact fees. They are
subject to that for the 15,000 square feet.
Commissioner Burt: Dan, would you like to explain your TDM program a bit?
Mr. Zemanek: Yes. Unfortunately I can’t really expound on it and really take you book, chapter
and verse through it. What we have done is on October 13 we had Fehr & Peers do a TDM study
for us and that is included in your packet. It is a very lenghy document and we are willing to
entertain a lot of the TDM measures that they are talking about and we certainly want to be able
to get our employees on public transportation. So we will continue working with Fehr & Peers
and continue to work with Staff to bring this program to something that is very specific. If that
answers your question Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Butt: Yes I think for now and maybe we can have Staff We us additional
explanation later.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the truck deliveries on E1 Camino. I don’t know
who can best answer this, maybe Staff can. Will the trucks stopping on E! Camino create a
problem in terms of traffic flow on E1 Camino in the way that a stopped bus sometimes does?
Cir." of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Russ Reich. Associate Planner: In this location it would not. There is actually a special lane
in addition to the lanes on E1 Camino. An5, truck or bus stopping here would not impede traffic
on E1 Camino. There is actually plenty of distance for the bus stop as well as a delivery stop in
that location.
Chair Griffin: I am going to ask a follow up question on the TDM program. My understanding
from what you said is that you haven’t finalized exactly what the consists of your TDM plan will
be and I am looking for some comments perhaps about how you plan to incentivize your TDM
plan.
Mr. Zemanek: I would like to introduce Chris Gray from Yehr & Peers who is working with us
on the TDM plan and let Chris explain this.
Mr. Chris Gray. Fehr & Peers. Associates: As specified in the document that we prepared for
Sunrise and also distributed to the City we thought it would be appropriate that there is a variety
of measures that Sunrise include. We think the most important of them are financial incentives.
There are mechanisms whereby Sunrise as an employer can Nve what are called commuter
checks to their employees. Those are checks they can then cash for bus passes, Cal Train passes
and other things. We think that is the primary method we can use to encourage people to use
transit. We thought also a very, important measure is that Sunrise should establish what is called
a gxmranteed ride home program. This is where say for instance two employees carpool, one of
the employees who did not drive has a sick child or has a medical emergency or for some reason
they have to go home. Sunrise would provide that person with a guaranteed ride home either
allowing them to use. their van or providing them with a taxi voucher. Agencies which are
providing a g~.laranteed ride home program find that it encourages people to use transit or use
carpool because it Nves them a level of comfort that if a family or personal emergency arises
they have the ability to get home without having to worry about my carpool left, how do I get
home? We find that those kinds of measures are often very effective. We also attached some
information on quantifiable studies that have been done on the effects of TDM measures to the
study we provided to Sunrise and to the City. As indicated in these studies these kinds of
measures, particularly the financial ones such as guaranteed ride home or transit passes, are very
effective at reducing the level of automobile use by employees.
Chair Griffin: I guess this question is for the Sunrise people. You definitely do plan to
incentivize with a number of different programs? You haven’t specified exactly what this plan
will be but you are pving us good faith indication here that you are going to do this?
Mr. Zemanek: Absolutely Commissioner. I want you to know that I think, at least I have been
told, when this TDM program goes into effect for our home is that this will be the first TDM
plan in effect along E1 Camino Real.
Char Griffin: Does Sunrise have previous experience with TDM programs in Sunnyvale or
Belmont or San Marco?
Mr. Zemanek: No, not in those three areas we don’t. One of the things that we do is if anybody
needs a ride home they always ~,t a ride home. We have been doing that demand program for
many, many years.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1"7
18
19
20
"~1
22
23
24
25
26
2?
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
3?
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
4?
48
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner I-tolman: I have a couple of questions having to do with traffic and transportation.
Oneis the auto court that is Coming off Sheridan now. In the visit to the Belmont facilitT there
were people parked in that turnabout, that circle there. What is your management proposal for
this court so that same thing doesn’t happen so people actually can get in and out?
Mr. Zemanek: We would have a ten-minute parking rule that would be there. The people who
were going to drop off must. In fact, let me go back to the one that shows the site plan. What we
would do here is we would create the ability in this area that a car can lay by here for a period of
time while they are dropping somebody off. We would have sig’ns posted that there would be no
more than ten minutes that the?, could stop here at any time and we will be able to have enough
room to allow cars to move around those cars that are stopped. The Belmont facility is a very,
very unique facility because of the grade that we had to make and the distance that we had to be
between Ralston and the creek area that you see. It was very, very tight and that is not like a
typical Sunrise turnaround. That is a very tight turnaround at Belmont.
Commissioner Holman: Just because it goes to management of the facility at the Belmont site
also there is a bulb out sort of thing over the closed gate that is supposed to be a turnabout for
that end and the van was parked there. So again, we are not talking about the Belmont project
but we are talking about management of the facilities.
Mr. Zemanek: After you made that comment to me about getting out there I went down and
noticed that. I mentioned it to Dory Parker and so we are going to do something about that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Holman: Then you mentioned also at that site visit that there was a very high
level of not TDM specific but of rideshare andcommuter practices that your employees took
advantage of. What percenta_~e, do you kind of overall what percenta~,e’
Mr. Zemanek: Commissioner, I am not certain what it is at Belmont but typically we will do a
minimum of 50% of our employees will either have a rideshare Lvpe situation or they will take
public transportation. Some of our facilities run as high as 70% when they are very close to
public transportation. We would expect this location to be very heavily involved in public
transportation.
Commissioner Holman: One last transportation question. Again in visiting that site it was stated
that the time that people come to visit the most is late afternoon and evening. Late afternoon and
earl?, evening is when the commuter hours are at their peaks. So what is your plan to tr?, to get
visitors to use some kind of a train or bus if it is available? They can come when they can come
but what are you proposing for that?
Mr. Zemanek: That is a good question and certainly would be something that would have to be
promoted. The fact that we are right next to the VTA 22 bus stop, which is wonderful, and we
are a nice crisp walk from the train station is also wonderful. Typically when you talk about
visitors stopping off, typically, they don’t stop off during the peak rush hour traffic times. The?,
are on their way home at that rime. Usually if you get visitors that will be somebody who might
Cir., of Paio Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"99
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
stop by in the middle of the day or somebody who will come out in the evening time to visit.
Typically at rush hour that is not the time that most of our visitors come to a Sunrise.
Commissioner Holman: So people don’t, I am not trying to question you here but it seems
obvious to me o~ likely to me that a lot of people would come on their way home instead of
=om=~, " ,, home the would ~o to visit someone.
Mr. Zema~,ek: Well, you would think that but that is not the typical way it happens. I think
~-~ ~ ~-an probably even back that up because Chris has ~one the studies at our homes. It is
just not - during the peak rush hour it doesn’t typically happen.
Char Griffin: Bonnie, do you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about how the BMR pro,re’am would work vis-a-vie the
different kinds of rooms that you have. Normally when we have looked at BMR prog-rams in the
context of a PC we have asked the developer to ensure that the range of BMRs matches the range
of opportunities for all people. In other words the BMRs are not only the smaller units for
example. So I wondered if you have thought that through. I don’t think the intent of the BMR is
not to have all the BMRs only in the two bedroom units for example but to have a range. How
do you propose to do that?
Mr. Zemanek: Right. Some BMR people will want to share and some people will want to be
alone. First of all.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I interrupt you? I think this is so unusual that the?, are not catching it.
You are Nving the assistance to the people and not to the unit in this case. So you will be
assigning a person this assistance for their housing and for their services and the?, may be in with
someone else or the?, may not be in with someone else.
Mr. Zemanek: Correct.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is different from our usual progam because it is assigned a unit usually
or a person that moves into a whole unit.
Mr. Zemanek: Thank you, Commissioner.
Vice-Char Cassel: This is very different.
Mr. Zemanek: So you may have a BMR person sharing a room with a market rate person.
Char Griffin: I have one more question. Dan I have been asked to request that-speakers who are
using the handheld microphone to stand a little bit further over towards. That is fine thank vou.
The question that I have for you is first of all the comment that there have been some critique
that the project is somewhat under-parked depending on your point of view of course. I was
pleased that you are now up to 40 spaces. You mention in your information that the consultant
studied your other facilities in the Bay Area and in their opinion and in yours as well the 38 or 40
spaces are sufficient. I am wondering what is the situation with Sunrise facilities outside the Bay
Area. Do you typically provide more than 40 spaces in out of state locations for example?
Ci& of Palo Alto Page
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
1
2 Mr. Zemanek: No, all of our Sunrises no matter what state or city they are in will basically
3 follow the same formula that we are using here. We are trying to do somewhere between .4 and
4 .45 spaces per unit and that is what we have typically done everywhere. Commissioner, it would
5 not be sound business judgment for us to under-park any of our buildings because after all if you
thinknei~hbors get frustrated with that "kind of parldng what about people who are visitors who
are putting their loved ones in their, they would get equally frustrated. So no we are not under
parking-the building in any Sunrise location. If it has happened it has happened erroneously.
Chair Griffin: And consequently facilities outside the Bay Area also have this 40 to 50 par’king
places per installation?
Mr. Zemanek: Depending upon the size of the building, yes sir.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have one question. How are your visitors going to access the underground
garage if you have to use a card system to get in there? Will family members have a card?
Mr. Zemanek: Yes they will.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question I am a little reluctant to ask because it may be beyond
the scope of our review but in a way it isn’t because it is a PC and I want to see about the
viability of this type of project. I was concerned about the size of the rooms especially the
smaller rooms. There didn’t seem to be room for an easy chair or whatever. Is this a standard
room size that vou use in all of your facilities for the single rooms and the two bedroom ones in
particular?
Mr. Zemanek: Correct. Our rooms will run anywhere from 300 square feet to 650 square feet
and sometimes it might approach close to 700. Commissioner Packer we have been at this since
1981 and we do nothing but keep improving the model constantly. The room sizes are basically
ideal sizes because what we try to do is people shouldn’t be spending their entire days in their
room. They are basically looked at as bedrooms and they are out recreating and joining activities
outside of their rooms. So the rooms are adequately sized, yes.
Commissioner Packer: The other question I have is what about storage of people’s personal
things? I know it is very difficult for an older person to leave their home and leave behind their
treasured objects and having room to display the pictures of people and the things they love to
have around them so.that their place looks like a little bit of home.
Mr. Zemanek: Right.
Commissioner Packer: I didn’t see much of that in those smaller rooms so I just wondered how
that has worked.
Mr. Zemanek: When you say in the rooms themselves do you mean their own furniture?
City of PaIo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Packer: A little bit of that, dresser space, something to put the pictures on and
storage in the building for things that they may need to store for whatever reason.
Mr. Zemanek: We have some areas of storage that they can use but basically people don’t bring
a lot in at that point in their life. Believe me they don’t. In fact we try to encourage them to
bring in pieces of their own furniture, things that are near and dear to them to get the familiar
feeling when they get into the room but they don’t bring a lot of stuff.
Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions then I am going to Nve the public an opportunity
to make some comments. At this point I only have one speaker request card, now I have two.
Our first speaker is Dr. Bob Cutler followed by Bill Hahn. Welcome Dr. Cutler. You can use
the stand up mike, it is a brand new one and it is absolutely fabulous.
Dr. Bob Cutler. 435 Sheridan Avenue. #303. Palo Altn: Good evening. I just had a few brief
comments. First I feel that the proposed PC zoning for the Sunrise development is an exce!lent
use of the land. I think it will benefit our community as wel! as all of Palo Alto. I feel it is much
preferable to have another multifamily condominium next to us than maybe a restaurant or
something on E1 Camino. I think that would be much more destructive and actually less
beneficial because we have plenty of restaurants on California Avenue at present. The other
thing is I just wanted to comment that the changes that have been presented tonight I feel address
all of the major issues we had brought up at least as I see it. I want to thank Sunrise for making
the changes and also the Commission for suggesting them. That’s all. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Bill Hahn and following Bill is James Yee.
Goodevening Bill.
Mr. Bill Hahn. 435 Sheridan Avenue. Palo Alto: Good evening. Thanks for the time again. I
guess I just have one comment and a couple of questions. I would like to echo the comments
Bob just made and really commend Sunrise for responding to and making several changes, the
deliveries on Et Camino, the ramp, moving the building a little bit. I think that will help on a lot
of the concerns that we did have. I am a resident of Silverwood. I tend to agee with the
comment I think you just made Commissioner Griffin that I think it helps solve a lot of the traffic
concerns. I am not sure it solves the parking concerns. The second point is I still have a concern
about height and actually a question really on that. It is my understanding that a PC zoning is 40
foot height restriction and if I understand the Staff Report correctly there is no proposal to
change the zoning so therefore how does a 44 foot building fit in a 40 foot zone. I’ll let you guys
talk about that. The third comment is sort of a question and an inverse of how I think w£ have
been talking about this site and its proximity to public transportation, etc. Once again
Commissioner Griffin I think you actually asked a version of this question last time veB; late in
the meeting. That is in the scheme of the whole Palo Alto planning why would we take a site
that essentially is within a couple b!ocks of a train station that is within a half a b!ock of el! the
public transportation associated with Page Mill and E1 Camino Real which would appear to be a
very loDcal commuter site and basically put a facility there that is not a commutin_~, facility? So
it is just kind of an interesting question. That is all I have to say. Thank you very ~nuch for the
time.
Cir." of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. James Yee followed by Joy Ogawa. Welcome
James.
Mr. James Yee. 435 Sheridan Avenue. Palo Alto: Thank you. I have a question about what will
occur in terms of after this project goes forward in terms of compliance to some of the things
which appear to be voluntary specifically this acronym, I don’t remember exactly what it is, but
to encourage the employees to use public transportation or carpooling. If that doesn’t occur and
there is a bigger parking and traffic problem as a result what if anything will be done to mediate
that? That is one question I have. Another one is I am very pleased that the plan has moved to
have the major truck deliveries on E1 Camino but what if the truck drivers decide it is more
convenient for them to unload on Sheridan? Again, who is going to ensure that there is
adherence to the proposal? I would like to just understand how that occurs. Finally, while I
appreciate the improvements made to the plan I also would like to request Sunrise consider if
there is anything else they can do to further move the bulk and height of the building. I
appreciate the step forward but I would think it wouldn’t be too hard to do a bit more of that and
that would be geatly appreciated. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Yee. Our last speaker is Joy Ogawa. If there are any other
speakers wishing to comment on this topic please step forward.
Ms. Joy Oaawa. 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: I am handing out some written comments so I
won’t go over each of my comments in detail. I do want to say that I want to outline at least four
ways in which I think this project is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. One is loss of
neighborhood commercial. They talked about, I heard Lisa before I came out here on "1"5; and
she said something about there was going to be some commercial but actually this is not
neighborhood serving commercial. This is commercial that serves this one particular new
faciiity and not the neighborhood. I really think the appropriate use for this site is mixed use that
really has a neighborhood serving component. Also the other thing about neighborhood serving
is it means the immediate residential neighborhood not the reg-ion, not the entire citv. The
second point is the density of the proposed project exceeds by 60% the maximum density set in
the Comp Plan. Actually it might exceed it even more because this is slightly less than an acre.
The third point is that I don’t think this is an appropriate use for this location because this
location is supposed to be earmarked for transit oriented development. This project actually
creates dozens of new jobs but is not going to house any of those new workers. So actually it
really worsens our job/housing imbalance as compared with our residential development, a
conventional residential development. That is the word Staff used. So I think this project
actually squanders the opportunity to take advantage of the proximity of this property to public
transit. Fourth point about the Comp Plan is that the traffic access to this project really should be
directly from E1 Camino. Access from Sheridan is contrary, to the Comp Plan polices that say
traffic should be kept on arterials and off of local streets. Now Staff says that it is fine to have
deliver3, access off of E1 Camino.that it creates no problem. Well if that creates no problem why
not al! tra~c access from E! Camino?
As regards to public benefit the public benefits mentioned in the Staff Report I think are vague
and inadequate and I kind of go into those. The Trees for E1 Camino, I mean I don’t even know
why that is mentioned as a public benefit. That should be something that should be expected of
all projects that the ARB approves.
Cir. of Palo AlIo Page 14
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
The project in fact would make it very difficult to develop the adjacent VTA property at the
comer of E1 Camino and Page Mill and actually is going to force that property to have street
access off of Page Mill and E1 Camino very, very close to the intersection. So I don’t know, they
talk about how they are going to work with the VTA but there is nothing definite there. What is
it that the), are going to do for that VTA property? Are they going to provide access from their
underground parking? If they are going to then it should be in writing.
The plans were not made available to the public so no one can comment on the plans. The Staff
Report talks about Attachment I but the Staff Report didn’t include Attachment I so the public is
really kind of in the dark. Maybe the Commission was provided with the plans but the public
wasn’t. The Staff Report is misleading when it states on page three that a conventional
residential project would total 57,500 square feet about 5,000 square feet less than the 63,327
square feet of the proposed project. Actually under current zoning a maximum 42,689 square
foot building would be allowed to be built on this 0.98-acre property. So Staff really is talking
about maybe a PC residential development not a residential development under current zoning.
That means that this proposed project is actually 20,658 square feet or 48% more massive than
would be allowed under current existing zoning.
I have concerns about the BlvIR contribution. How is it really going to work in practice? I
visited the San Mateo facility and I was told that they assess each of their potential residents
under a point system. The greater your need the more points. As needs change points increase
and how are they going tO accommodate that? I think you should refer this to City Council there
are issues that Council should address before more work is done on revising the plans because
there are major use issues and other issues.
Chair. Griffin: Thank you Joy. We have no further speaker cards so I am going to bring the item
back to Commissioners to ask additional questions of Staff or the applicant. Actually we do
have the opportunity of Dving the applicant a chance to make a wrap up comment. Mr.
Zemanek are you interested in doing that?
Mr. Zemanek: I am just going to say one thing very quickly because this is another very
interesting statistic. The people that will occupy a Sunrise home 70% of them will come out of
the area, 50% of those people wilt come out of an apartment, a home, a condominium or what
have you freeing that particular housing unit up for somebody else. So one of the things that an
assisted living home does provide is it also relieves the housing shortage in areas. That is a
proven commodity. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis you have a question?
Vice-Chair Casset: I have a question of Staff. There is a VTA parking lot next door and when I
was there today it says that it is only available for people who take the ~ri’A but there didn’t
seem to be any particular markers on those vehicles that would indicate that they were riding the
VTA bus. I have never seen that parking lot have more than a couple of cars in it. Is there some
way to work out something with VTA for parking for people in the neighborhood or is there any
way we could approach that from a different approach than we have been doing?
Cir. of PaIo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mr. Reich: We could contact them and find out. In my conversations with the %~I’A they did
explain that this was not an excess site, as they call them, but we can certainly talk to them and
find out if there is the ability to use their parking spaces with some kind of parking agreement.
Vice,Chair Cassel: It isn’t an excess space but it certainly isn’t being used very efficiently.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Hotman: I thought Staff might want to respond to a couple of questions from
members of the public. One about the 40 foot height and one about the 90 units to the acre, I
think those two should be responded to.
Ms. Grote: Thank you. YesI did want to respond to Mr. Hahn and Mr. Yee’s questions. The
height limit in the PC zone is 50 feet. That is written in the ordinance it is 50 feet maximum. So
this building does fall within that height limit. Mr. Yee had asked about the TDM, which is
Transportation Demand Management progam, and truck deliveries and how those might be
enforced in the future. We can and have with Stanford who is the other property owner who has
a TDM program approved at this point required annual monitoring. They submit to us reports as
to what the breakdown is for alternative transportation use, bikes, carpooling, vanpooling,
Train and other ty,pes of alternative transportation. So we can and have required that kind of
monitoring. The truck deliveries we do have ongoing condition monitoring, which occurs on a
regxalar basis after projects are approved. Our code enforcement officers do go out and conduct
ongoing condition monitoring. We also have more traditional code enforcement where when we
receive complaints we respond to those complaints as well. In terms of what would implications
be of not having the truck deliveries or the TDM we would if we found out that they weren’t
implementing their TDM or their truck delivery or other conditions we would notify them that
they would be required to implement those conditions. We could conceivably have another
public hearing to review the conditions. That is unusual but it has happened for conditional use
permits in the past. So there are ways for us to enforce those conditions. Again the 90 units per
acre when you look at the residential portion of this project which is about 68 persons per acre in
those 59 units that falls within the 90 persons per acre perimeter that is mentioned in the
Comprehensive Plan. Then the remaining 15,000 square feet again is in commercial
convalescent type use. So that is not looked at in terms of persons per acre. That is looked at in
terms of allowed uses within a multiple family land use category.
Commissioner Holman: I must say when I read the Staff Report I continued to be a little bit
confused because I also understand the density as 50 to the acre. So I am still a little bit
confused on that and how you are sa.ving 90 units to the acre.
Ms. Grote: It is actually 90 persons to the acre. It is up to I believe 50 units per acre under
transit oriented development as a maximum. In the multiple mid range density for residential it
says 90 persons per acre so this 68 persons on a little bit less than an acre is within that range.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This site was indicated as a housing site on our Housing Element and the
state is watching us pretty closely about whether we meet our Housing Element requirements.
City of PaIo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
How does this count towards that? Wil! they consider all of the units or some of the units or
none of the units or what?
Ms. Grote: It would be considered a housing use for the majority of it for those that are assisted
hving. We have checked with our Housing Manager and with the state and there isn’t a conflict
with this use in meeting our housing goals.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Does it count towards it? Will all those assisted units that are not in the
commercial area count towards it?
Ms. Grote: It would count towards meeting a housing need. Yes it does count.
Chair Griffin: Let me just follow up on that. So it does in fact count towards our quota of
required units that we are listing in our Housing Element?
Ms. Grote: Fifty-nine of them would. Those are the assisted units. Again what we are
considering more the commercial use and the convalescent care wouldn’t count towards the
housing but the 59 that are housing would count.
Chair Griffin: Mr. Zemanek said if I understood him correctly that 70% of the people that are
attracted to this Sunrise facility would come from the immediate community, thus freeing up
housing in Palo Alto for families. I am wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit I may
not have understood.
_Mr. Zemanek: Yes. The typical area that we look at is an area say around three to five miles
around a home. That is where the majority of the people are going to come from. Within that
area 70% of those people are going to come from that area. When I say that area it is because the
carepvers, the sons and daughters who are taking care of morns and clads who have lost their
independence and let’s say they may have been old Palo Alto residents that live in Phoenix,
Arizona or something when they lose their independence they come back and the kids will then
put them into a Sunrise home. That is what I am saying. But talking about the 70% that comes
out of this area that we would appeal to, this three to five mile radius.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a folio’a, up question to that. When I read the previous Staff
Report and the statement was mentioned that you just repeated about freeing up residential units
locally could we put a condition on the project that they would ~ve preference to Palo Alto
residents ?
Mr. Zemanek: We will volunteer that. Absolutely. We will volunteer that.
Ms. Grote: And our legal advisor is telling us that yes we can do that.
I also did want to folio,a, up a little bit on the Housing Element. In the Housing Element in
Appendix E, The Housing Site Inventor?,, we had called out 35 aparmaents on this site on what
used to be the Green World Nursery. site. So it was 35 units and considering the proposal it is 59,
which is a geater number.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page J 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: With regard to the TDM program Lisa, as I understand it there are several
different elements that would be considered. As I recall in the past we have deferred to Staff to
negotiate the final components of a TDM program. Is that the intention at this time?
Ms. Grote: Our Transportation Planner has looked at this and conceptually agreed with it. We
may want to, especially in light of some of your conversation tonight, include an annual
monitoring program as part of this. But yes, so far our Transportation Planning Division is in
agreement with what is being proposed.
Commissioner Bum One other small element to it that I might suggest as a result of comments
that were made earlier, visitors to the facility would be less familiar with the alternatives.
Perhaps some components of a kiosk or something like that, a transit kiosk, would facilitate use
by visitors.
Ms. Grote: Yes, we can include that as well.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Sorry I just have a lot of questions on this one. The plan that is up here
is a little different than our alternative four. On the plan that we have it says that that 20-foot
wide fire lane is where you now have a landscape lane. So.that is a difference but the reason I
am going there is because the "~rYA site, does Staff think that because of its location and the size
of the parcel that it would develop reasonably on it own or would it be reasonable to consider
that the Sunrise parcel provide access for the adjoining VTA site? To be more specific to
provide egress onto E1 Camino from this site.
Ms. Grote: Whenever possible on a busy street ! think it is advisable to combine points of access
so you have fewer points of access off of a busy street such as E1 Camino. For that reason we
would want to seriously consider having a shared access for these two sites especially g-iven the
proximity of the comer where the VTA site is located. So yes we would encourage a shared
access. So that is why we consider this ability to provide that in the future important.
Commissioner Holman: I guess one other question, one question for Staff and then one for Staff
and Commissioners and one for Commissioners. From my estimation I think it is a great project.
It is a ~eat facility and it-was very educational to go visit the site in Belmont. Having said that I
also think that the public benefits associated with this project are not what the?, should be. Public
benefits associated with PCs are things that normally would not be able to be accomplished
without a PC. So I am asking Staff for what they would consider to be intrinsic and maybe
fellow Commissioners to third,: too about what other public benefits the?, might think would be
appropriate as public benefits for this project.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I was thinking about that and I have to back and think about why this is
before us as a PC in the first place. The reason it is is because we don’t have a use in our zoning
Cir. of Paio Alto Page 18
1 code to accommodate this type of use. So in a sense because our zoning code hasn’t caught up to
2 what our society may be needing in terms of defining-these uses then developers have to come in
3 the form of a PC and then is bootstrapped with the requirement for additional public benefits. If
4 we had an assisted living use with development centers and the whole ball of wax in our zoning
5 code’ then we wouldn’t have to be dealing with it as a PC. So it is "kind of in this particular case
6 because of it is a unique or a new use for us I feel a little bit differently about trying to - I think
7 the public benefits that the developers proposed are good ones. I am not saying that you
8 shouldn’t do it. I don’t feel as though it is as much of a bootstrapping as in another situation.
9 For example if somebody came to us with an office use but wanted a PC in order to get more
10 FAR that is different. Here it is a PC because we don’t have it in our zoning. There is no other
11 way for somebody to come and bring this except through a PC. That is one way for us to think
12 about this when we talk about public benefit.
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Now I take it then we are finished up mostly with questions and we are ready to
make comments at this point. Phyllis, do you have a comment?
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is a special project. I think the first thing I want to indicate is that
assisted living is a term that runs a long range, a big gamut. I was looking through the list we
have of all the assisted living facilities that there are and noticed that assisted living covers units
that have three meals a day and some housekeeping services. For many of those people it is very
independent living. This project is obviously being built by the way it is desig-ned and the way
the rooms are for people who have much more dependent needs than the more independent
people who are in Channing House for instance. I don’t know many people who are in Channing
House that consider themselves in assisted living but that is the way it is listed. The only
comparable project we have in town of any size is Palo Alto Commons. It is also different
because it is a rental facility. So we have other assisted living facilities in town that have income
restrictions or purchasing restrictions so you have to have low income in order to be in Lytton II.
You have to purchase a unit in order to go to the Hyatt when it comes or in order to go to
Channing House or in order to go to some other facilities in the area. So those units are not
really easily accessible to people.
The public benefit in this is not in the BMR units because of course we expect everyone to have
BMR units but in the assistance for the services that are being provided to those people who are
in the BMR units. In Palo Alto Commons we tried having some BlvIR units and didn’t work
because they also needed the services and the people’s whose incomes were low enough to
qualify for the BMR units didn’t qualify for the services and we had to revamp the way we were
handling that pro~am. I will go ahead and let someone else talk at this point but come back to
me please.
Char Griffqn: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I wil! just make a few comments. One, ! t_hink tha the applicant has done a
good job of responding to many of the concems of the neighbors and the Commission that were
rased at our last hearing. I would also like to share for those members of the public and the
Commission that didn’t get the opportunity to visit their Belmont facility it was an enlightening
tour. A couple of the things that by looking at the desig-n I really would have had additional
questions on the application of some of the desig’n features those questions were largely
answered by seeing the other facility. Where they are talking about having landscaped zones that
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
.~1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
are public access, I saw at the Belmont facilitS, they actually have a beautifu! landscaped garden
adjacent to a school and they have intergenerationa! activities where the seniors at the residence
are interacting with students at the school on a regular basis. This would be not an identical
circumstance but it was genuine. A!so the architectural features, when you see a rendition it is
hard to really have a clear notion of how much that building is a nice painting and how much of
it would end up being a very attractive building that would blend in the environment. Certainly
the one in Belmont was a very attractive building with a lot of features that made it very
interactive not only for the residents but for the adjacent area and it blended in extremely well
with the surrounding landscaping. It was frankly quite impressive. Not only that but in terms of
the intrinsic value of the program I just was extremely impressed with what the folks at Sunrise
are doing in terms of very sensitive care for elderly population. It was maybe the best living
environment for elderly who needed assisted care that I have ever encountered. I think it is
going to provide a very valuable service to our families and maybe someday ourselves in this
community. So all those things combined and not the least of which is the way in which they
have addressed many of these concerns that were raised by the neighbors and the Commission
make me be supportive of the project.
Chair Griffin: I will just speak for a couple of items here. For me this is a difficult project from
the standpoint that it presents a series of tradeoffs. For sure we have less impacts on our carrying
capacity of the infrastructure due to the nature of a senior facility on the other hand it doesn’t do
much for helping our jobs/housing imbalance. It does provide housing for a growing senior
population however we have other projects coming along that will also add to the availability of
senior housing in the immediate area. I am thinking of the JCC campus as well as the Hyatt
Classic project. So it is not as if other people aren’t likewise attempting to provide facilities for
seniors. I was quite pleased that Mr. Zemanek offered to establish some method of ~ving
priority to Palo Alto seniors. That really speaks to me a lot from the standpoint that if we could
in fact feel confident that we were making housing available for local folks and trade up so to
speak so that families could assume some of those senior houses that would be terrific. Karen
asked a moment ago about more appropriate punic benefits and that is one of the items that I
have been agonizing over myself trying to fi~mare out what else might we do that was appropriate
and make this project more amenable with what we are trying to achieve here. Myself, I think
that the concept of 11 BMR units that do provide the services to go along with is terrific. It is a
big step in the right direction. I, myself, might propose the number 12 instead of 11, as a way of
upping the ante on that public benefit but that would appeal to me. Karen, do you want to
respond?
Commissioner Holman: Yes I think I am ready to make a motion if everybody has made their
comments. I also really appreciate the invitation and the opportunity to tour the facility. It is
quite a fine facility it seemed to me. t also was very pleased the Mr. Zemanek was willing to
volunteer to ~ve preference for Palo Alto residences. There would of course need to be a
program coming back with that. I am going to make a motion because I also struggled with this
project and we don’t have a zoning that would encapsulate this. Bonnie is absolutely right. !
agree with all of her comments on that.
MOTION
So my motion is going to be that we make recommendations that we look at access for the
adjacent VTA site for the project so that they have common shared access. That the preferential
Ci& of Paio Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
treatment for preferential access for Palo Alto residents be included. That a specific TDM
management plan be included. The public benefit package to me really isn’t adequate because
the VTA site, that is nice if that happens but we don’t know if it is going to happen, Avenidas,
that program needs to be more fully fleshed out and the last piece of this is that because this is
such a unique project we are not the policy makers so I move that we refer this to the City
Council so that we make this the most expeditious process for the applicant as possible. I would
hate to see them go down a long design process at the ARB and then get to the City Council and
find that there were or were not enough public benefits included. That’s my motion.
Chair Griffin: Any seconds? I am not hearing any seconds so the item drops. Yes?
MORON
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’l! make a motion. That we forward this project to the ARB for their
recommendation and approva! and that we recommend plan 4.1 for further refinement. I
understand that this is a preliminary review. Why don’t I wait a minute and see if there is a
second.
Chair Griffin: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Bun:: I’ll second.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. This is a preliminary review and not the final review so the
public benefit package will be worked on and the TDM program will be worked on before it
comes back to us and the other benefits. I found that the benefits are roughly appropriate under
the circumstances. We are serving a frail, elderly population in this project and that provides a
special need that we need to be aware of and we need to accommodate in the community. I
found that this project met the Comprehensive Plan objectives under Policy C-15 and C~-18 and I
won’t list all of those for us tonight. We can look them up. It would include Policy C-15 and C-
16 and C-17 and it also serves Policy H-18 to support housing that incorporates facilities and
services to meet the health, care, transit or social needs of households with special needs
including seniors and persons with disabilities. We meet the Housing Element because we are
able to meet the requirements for units for this site. In fact we are able to put in additiona! ones.
We will meet an urgent need for Alzheimer’s beds. These are veu, hard to come by and very
urgently needed. When you need them you need them now so you need a little space in the
community, an empty bed here and there. I think that this is going to meet the E1 Camino
guidelines that we have a requirement for. The owner/applicant here has been very cooperative
in agreeing to work with this project and I think it is very helpful. I have some more comments
but I will Nve Pat a chance.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Bun:: I think my earher comments covered what I needed to say. I look forward
toward this moving for~’ard in the process. I k.now the applicants have been patient in waiting to
get this far along and I wish them luck.
Ciq of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to take this opportunity to say that I enthusiastically support
the comments that Phyllis and Pat and Karen have made as wel! and Mike. I think this is a
wonderful opportunity for Palo Alto. Keep in mind we will probably free up some of the homes
that the seniors are coming from. I hope it goes forward and I am looking forward to seeing a
good project built.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think that the motion probably would include the comments that have
been made earlier like about access and such so I won’t go there. One comment I would make is
I am a little bit uncomfortable still about the parking adequacy. I am a little uncomfortable with
that. I am only going to.oppose the motion not because I don’t have support for the project I
have a lot of support for the project. I am very enthusiastic about the facility. I am just
concerned about the process being more expeditious for the applicant going another direction.
Chair Griffin: I will not be supporting the motion for a lot of the reasons that Karen has
mentioned. I think that we in fact could have come up with some more public benefits on our
own here this evening and I am a little disappointed that we didn’t have the opportunity to pursue
that. I am also concerned about parking and whether or not the project is under-parked of
course. We have heard a couple of different points of view on that already. I continue to have a
question about it and I also have trepidation about abandoning this site so close to transit and so
close to the Stanford Research Park, abandoning this site to housing that would more directly
address our jobs/housing imbalance. For that reason I am opposing the motion. Pat, you have
something?
Commissioner Burr: I just had one follow up comment. From both Michael’s comments and
some of those of members of the public there are valid concerns about other potential uses for
this site that would address other components and objectives of the Comp Plan. I think they are
accurate and the problem is that we really can’t do all things with one site. What we I think need
to concentrate on is how many of the reasonable objectives can achieved through a Nven plan
and then what we can do in an overall neighborhood and look at addressing many of the
concerns that are there in our overall plan for this neighborhood. While respecting that those
statements are accurate I just think that we can’t achieve every favorable to a Nven site and that
in the net this is a very positive project. When I think about the various arguments that might be
made against different types of development that might go here I think that this is probably as
few of objections as you might garner against an?, proposal. When we compare it to the
discussions that we had on problems just a few blocks away and from some of the adjacent
condo projects who are being impacted by The Edge and Antonio’s Nut House I can’t imaNne a
project that is more in the opposite direction in terms of neighborhood quiet than this one might
be as compared to that. So any project is going to have its pros and cons and what do we think
of it in the net.
Chair Griffin: Yes, Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I asked that you bring it back to me. I confirm everything that Pat has said
there. I had wanted to make some comments on circulation. This is a fairl?; quiet neighborhood
Ciu, of Paio Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
and you wouldn’t think it would be as close as it is to E1 Camino. I am often on this street and it
is amazingly quiet. This is going to help that actually because other uses, commercial uses and
other uses, would actually cause more problems. The idea of parking on E1 Camino, I actually
went out and measured the width of that road to see if that would work. I actually watched the
cars making the rams to see if they pulled into that lane and they don’t and I don’t when I pull
around that corner. I was very impressed with them moving the massing and scale of this project
back away from the Silverwood Apartments. I had a whole list of things and they have
addressed all of those things, which I think is very impressive and very helpful. So I think this is
going to make a nice project and when it is done we are going to be very pleased and the
neighbors are going to be pleased that this is a residential project near them.
MOTION PASSED (3-2-1-1, Commissioners Holman and Griffin voted no with Commissioner
Bialson in conflict and Commissioner Bellomo absent).
Chair Griffin: I think we are ready for the vote then. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? (nays) The motion does carry with Commissioners Griffin and Holman voting
negative, Commissioner Bialson is conflicted and Commissioner Be!lomo is absent.
Thank you everyone for this item. It is now time for a break. We will come back in ten minutes.
Thank you.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We are going to be reconvening the meeting of the Palo
Alto Planning and Transportation Commission. I would like to announce a change in our
agenda. It does not have to be moved it is Chairman’s choice. We are going to be substituting
Agenda Item Three in place of Agenda Item Two. We will be just exchanNng the two of them
so that we can deal with this item hopefully on an expeditious basis.
I would also like to welcome back to the desk Commissioner Bialson who now joins us for the
remainder of our meeting.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Chair Griffin: Item number three will be our next item and it will be handled under the New
Business portion of our agenda. I would like to open the public hearing on a Proposed
Replacement and Enhancement of an Equestrian Crossing on Arastradero Road between the
Portola Pastures driveway and the Arastradero Preserve. Would Staff like to make a
presentation, please?
Proposed Replacement and Enhancement of an Equestrian Crossing on Arastradero Road
between the Portola Pastures driveway and the Arastradero Preserve. SR Weblink:
http://www.cirvofpal oalto.or.~/citva_~enda!pubtish/Nanning-transDortation-meetin_,s/2607.pdf
Mr. Joseph Kott. Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Commissioner Griffin and
members of the Planning and Transportation Commission. I would like to note that his is a
somewhat unusual item. We have never address at this Commission the needs of equestrians,
which.is possibly the oldest means alternative of transportation. We do not have a warrant for
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 23